Military Review

What color is green? The oddities of alternative energy

221

Is alternative energy good?


Recently, everything in the world is connected with energy. But at VO, this topic with enviable persistence in discussions turns into the fact that the future of cities is in windmills and solar panels. He gave the basics of the topic for seeding, while not considering either the numbers or the possible, as it seems to me, reasons for such an opinion. It's just that otherwise it will be a memorandum of a hundred sheets, if it is interesting, you can continue. So far - at a gallop and at the very tops.



Last fall, the only Russian wind farm that worked for a long time looked like this. Kaliningrad


There are not many unshakable axioms in the world. One of them: alternative energy is good. It is easy to see that this issue is never even discussed. The country built X windmill (wind farm) or solar station (SES) - this is just wonderful. Even from opponents you can only hear statements except that it is expensive, but everything is wonderful: energy, and even for nothing, and "environmentally friendly." Oddities begin further.

Firstly, it’s hard to understand what exactly apologists for “green energy” are talking about. Recently, the term “renewable energy sources” (RES) has been popular. For example, the other day they adopted the next program of their state support: “Forcing exports: supporting green energy below expectations”. But it also includes mini-hydroelectric power stations, differing from ordinary ones only in the scale of the flooded territory. And now about any flooded forests at the bottom of the Rybinsk Reservoir any apologist of “green energy” will tell you as an example of non-environmental friendliness. However, the same can be said about SES, such fungi can grow only in a completely lifeless desert (in contrast to a completely living reservoir with fish):


NRG Energy and BrightSource Energy Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System occupies 14 km² in the Mojave Desert, supplying 180 000 electricity to consumers in Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison


And who is green? These pretty huts will be greener in any sense, although they also occupy a certain area, produce emissions, and also require specific raw materials: roughly speaking, it is necessary to populate the fields for fuel. However, they successfully recycle various bio-garbage (waste from slaughterhouses, for example).


Biogas station "Luchki" in the Prokhorovsky district of the Belgorod region


However, a wood stove is also a source of energy, moreover, from a renewable source. And, by the way, they (in very approximate values, by eye) are often stuffed into the generation figures from renewable energy sources around the world.

Well, in order not to spread like a cape on the tree, imagine that we are only talking about SES and wind farm. And look at their advantages.

Pluses of SES and wind farm


• Free energy. Nothing comes from nowhere, if you received energy, it means that it has left somewhere. Not to mention that the equipment did not fall from the sky, it needs to be serviced (snow removal from 14 sq. Km was presented - the same 180 000 residents are needed there every day), and most importantly, it must be disposed of after its service life.

• "Clean energy". About the fact that the SES can only stand on dead ground, I already think it’s clear. Lunar landscape. And next to the wind farm supports, even earthworms in the soil die from vibration. This is not to mention that these meat grinders for birds make noise so that nothing can be built around them again. Once again, disposal is a dirty thing.

• Reducing the load on the network and their networks, simplification. The argument is especially loved by the sect of St. Mask. Only exactly the opposite: the main technological minus of the SES / wind farm is instability. The wind does not always blow, the sun does not shine at night. And in the afternoon it is far from always and with different intensity. That is, you definitely need to include backup generation in any network, and put the network itself in the category of “smart” ones that transfer generation from one object to another, and on the scale of, for example, a region, you will also have to throw off the surpluses that inevitably arise somewhere. So, for example, 14 days in March, 9 days in February and 8 days in January 2017 years, neighboring Arizona received electricity with surcharge from California. California paid neighbors up to $ 25 per megawatt-hour, while consumers themselves usually pay from $ 14 to $ 45 per megawatt-hour in a normal situation when there is no surplus.

• Availability. A windmill or panel can be stuck in places where there is no coal or oil. The argument, by the way, on the contrary, is not favored by apologists for “green energy”, because it reminds us that the reason for the development of alternative energy is a lack of traditional one. She was originally an ersatz. And, by the way, this is the only real plus: there are areas where such energy is more profitable, the rest is much more expensive to drag. But here we must remember that there must be another resource. Either constant winds (coast), or the solar regime is favorable. Those. northern and even continental country is suitable. And do not forget, in any case, you need an additional generator, moreover stable, not depending on the weather and on the biofuel crop, by the way.

• Price for the consumer. Also a long topic. For example, they subsidize the generation of renewable energy, the station releases electricity at a price slightly higher. But not much, they buy it, there are quotas, for example, in the USA - you have to buy so much energy from a wind farm / wind farm, having received a "green certificate" for that. The price at the peak of generation can even be lower than gas generation! Success? And where are the subsidies from? From taxes of the same enterprise, i.e. paid for energy twice. And only the first amount went to the report. We have the same: “Consumers are tired of green energy”.

Where are the pros?


The above are purely logical calculations. Indisputable advantages have not yet been found. However, in the information field the term “green energy” itself is undoubtedly positive. And to such an extent that in the recently adopted model for the development of renewable energy in the Russian Federation, self-sufficiency of the industry is planned for the 2035 year, but it is already planned to subsidize it - up to 2050 ... Any thoughts why?

If it is interesting, I can continue the topic, by the way, it is inextricably linked with VO: issues of energy security and environmental terrorism, for example, the seizure of the Prirazlomnaya platform. Where, for example, according to the results, our valiant border guards violated, it turns out, the law of the sea as much as 5,4 million dollars, about which the Russian Federation informed the Hague arbitration.
Author:
Photos used:
newkaliningrad.ru, TASS, habr.com
221 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Zeev Zeev
    Zeev Zeev 5 September 2019 15: 09 New
    -28
    Green energy has another huge minus - a decrease in dependence on hydrocarbons and oil and gas suppliers. winked
    That's why the stories begin about the “meat grinder” (although the rotational speed of the blades is designed so as not to touch the flying birds), and about the “worms running away from vibration”, and about solar power plants on the “dead earth”.
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 5 September 2019 15: 18 New
      +8
      While the "green energy" thing is very expensive and not everyone can allow it .. Well done, of course, those who are engaged in its development, after a while it will bring serious results.
      1. ab2020
        ab2020 5 September 2019 15: 32 New
        +37
        It is not just costly, but "very costly" and, most sadly, that there are no prospects for a significant reduction in the required level of investment costs. In Europe, built a bunch of wind farms, i.e. it’s not just single windmills anymore - but equipment prices remain prohibitively high.
        Second: the instability of the generation level does not allow relying on it to power industrial consumers, where an interruption is fraught with a technological accident (at least loss).
        It seems like everything looks beautiful from the outside ... But in fact it remains a toy for those who have a lot of extra money.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 5 September 2019 15: 41 New
          +11
          The price of alternative energy is constantly falling
          For example, a graph of the price of a solar panel per 1 watt of generated power
          1. Mestny
            Mestny 5 September 2019 16: 05 New
            +23
            This schedule did not include the cost of related equipment - regulators, converters, panel control systems, energy stores.
            It has long been estimated that, given the current level of technology, in order to fully satisfy the demand for electricity, all of humanity must practically cease the production of electronics, for example - the capacities will be used to produce silicon for panels. How much energy and other expensive materials are needed for the production of all this and its attendant, I think it’s clear.
            Maybe not enough.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 5 September 2019 16: 35 New
              -3
              https://www.rbc.ru/trends/green/5d6557709a7947664284b3c0
              2. The increase in cost-effectiveness

              Every year, green energy, which used to be expensive and meaningless, is becoming increasingly competitive. For example, the cost of a solar module has fallen by 2010% since 90, which has made solar power plants more cost-effective than oil and coal in many countries around the world.

              In 2018, the weighted average cost of energy production by new solar installations amounted to $ 85 per 1 MWh. This is 13% lower than in 2017. For fossil fuel power plants, the figure is from $ 49 to $ 174 per 1 MWh in different countries. This leads to the fact that in some places it is even more profitable to put a solar battery or a wind installation than continue to support the operation of a gas-fired power plant.

              Read more at RBC:
              https://www.rbc.ru/trends/green/5d6557709a7947664284b3c0
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 5 September 2019 20: 40 New
                +7
                [quote = BlackMokona] This leads to the fact that in some places it is even more profitable to put a solar battery or a wind installation than to continue to support the operation of a gas-fired power plant.

                Read more at RBC:
                https://www.rbc.ru/trends/green/5d6557709a7947664284b3c0[/quote][/quote]

                There are very few "some" places on earth ...
                These are single micro-villages at the equator, or coasts with constantly operating winds ..
                Both places are extremely uncomfortable for human life. but only for geeks and outcasts ...
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 5 September 2019 21: 10 New
                  -9
                  Therefore, China, India are building a huge number of solar and wind stations. They probably don’t know how to count money
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 5 September 2019 21: 11 New
                    +25
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    Therefore, China, India are building a huge number of solar and wind stations. They probably don’t know how to count money

                    Yeah ... and 20 nuclear reactors ...
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 5 September 2019 21: 45 New
                      -20
                      The total capacity of which is several times less than the new wind and power plants
                    2. ccsr
                      ccsr 6 September 2019 13: 42 New
                      +3
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Yeah ... and 20 nuclear reactors ...

                      So they have a huge deficit of electricity per capita, which is why they are trying to cover it with all types of power plants.
                  2. _Sergei_
                    _Sergei_ 6 September 2019 04: 10 New
                    +9
                    China and India just make money from it. And for your loved ones, nuclear and thermal power plants and spit on the environment
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 6 September 2019 09: 30 New
                      -1
                      Of course of course. laughing
                      In 2016, China introduced a total of 34.2 GW of solar power capacity [7]. The National Energy Administration of China stated that in the first half of 2017 it installed 24.4 GW of new capacities [8], and as many as 13.5 GW in just one June 2017, Asia Europe Clean Energy (Solar) Advisory (AECEA) stated that China installed in July another 10,52 GW of solar generation [9]. As a result, in the first half of 2017, China exceeded the goals of its own 13th five-year plan (2016-2017) for the installation of 105 GW of solar generation. In addition, new capacities can be commissioned in connection with the implementation of the Poverty Eradication Program (8 GW). The total installed capacity in 2017 is forecasted to be in the range of 40–45 GW [10].
                      1. RelictEmpire
                        RelictEmpire 9 September 2019 14: 55 New
                        0
                        According to the National Energy Administration of China, at the end of 2016, the total installed capacity of solar panels was 77.42 GW, which amounted to 1% of the total electricity generation in the country. However, despite the high rate of quantitative growth, China still lags far behind developed countries (Germany, Japan, USA, Spain) in terms of per capita consumption of solar generation.

                        Sure - this is a breakthrough!
                        Yes ... forgot to add another 4% of the windmills all in the same China. This is already 5% of the total number of output.
                  3. Oyo Sarkazmi
                    Oyo Sarkazmi 8 September 2019 15: 54 New
                    0
                    Herd instinct. Or else - Ellochka-cannibalism syndrome.
          2. rlanry
            rlanry 5 September 2019 22: 51 New
            +8
            How much does it cost in candy wrappers, whatever they are called - dollars, rubles, Tugriks, bitcoins - it does not matter. Only the ratio "energy input / energy received" is important - EROEI. Which the "green" is much worse than the traditional.
            1. pru-pavel
              pru-pavel 6 September 2019 07: 50 New
              0
              All the same, you have to pay by the counter in candy wrappers and not by yeroyim
        2. Victor N
          Victor N 5 September 2019 19: 00 New
          +16
          According to some estimates, the cost of electricity to create a wind farm is greater than it can produce for the entire service life. I lost the link. Germany incurs losses on the production of electricity at wind farms, but earns on the sale of equipment: a brilliant business project!
        3. Alien From
          Alien From 6 September 2019 00: 16 New
          +8
          I agree with you, everyone forgets about the fact that producing this green equipment requires enormous energy costs, which nowadays are given only by nuclear power plants, and the price of nuclear energy is the cheapest in the world.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 6 September 2019 19: 08 New
            -3
            Quote: Alien From
            which in our time give only nuclear power plants, and the price of nuclear energy is the cheapest in the world.

            As for the "cheapness" of atomic energy, there are certain myths that are circulated by people who do not understand where this "cheapness" came from. I will not remind you that the American Westinghouse is bankrupt, but this is the best evidence that nuclear power in the United States is not cheap at all.
            I will not go into details, but the main "cheapness" of our energy comes from our military nuclear programs, the costs of which were not very taken into account, but the raw materials in the USSR were mined for everyone in the nuclear industry.
            I don’t dare to judge how much we have enough Soviet reserves, but all the countries in the world who begin to do this now will get the cost of nuclear energy not so small.
            So be careful with the estimates of "cheapest" - the HEU-LEU deal showed that the Americans are well aware of the value of enriched uranium, which is why we are fooled in such a cheap way.
      2. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 5 September 2019 15: 51 New
        +5
        Cost thing "green energy", very costly. So for me personally, a solar boiler cost almost a thousand bucks with the installation. There would be no oil boiler to supply, like some. And to pay for diesel fuel the same price that was saved on electricity.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 5 September 2019 20: 45 New
          +9
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Cost thing "green energy", very costly. So for me personally, a solar boiler cost almost a thousand bucks with the installation. There would be no oil boiler to supply, like some. And to pay for diesel fuel the same price that was saved on electricity.


          And how much would this thousand dollars be enough for you if you continued to use further the system that you used before?
          How many more hundreds of dollars did you pay for installation and integration into your utility system?

          How will you provide a comfortable supply of water at a comfortable temperature in winter and night?

          Or will you order us, like the French, the Irish to drown no higher than 11 degrees in the winter and walk around the house, wrapped in a million sweaters?
          Or swim in 5 people in the same water in turn?
          Observing the regime of severe savings?
          no.
          Our principles of hygiene are not like that.
          We love to wash.
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 5 September 2019 21: 12 New
            -1
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Or swim in 5 people in the same water in turn?
            Observing the regime of severe savings?
            no.
            Our principles of hygiene are not like that.
            We love to wash.


            Soon the government will adjust our principles .. You still do not consider how many cubes of water you spend? I think prices are biting, but there will still be roofing felts, our officials are carefully looking at Europe ..
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 5 September 2019 21: 14 New
              +3
              Quote: Svarog
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Or swim in 5 people in the same water in turn?
              Observing the regime of severe savings?
              no.
              Our principles of hygiene are not like that.
              We love to wash.


              Soon the government will adjust our principles .. You still do not consider how many cubes of water you spend? I think prices are biting, but there will still be roofing felts, our officials are carefully looking at Europe ..


              5-6 cubic meters per month is my average winter consumption.
              In the summer - 7-8 - I love cleanliness.
    2. Dym71
      Dym71 5 September 2019 15: 29 New
      +5
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      Green energy has another huge minus - a decrease in dependence on hydrocarbons and oil and gas suppliers.

      You have forgotten to mention for Hevrat Hashmal who drank all the juice from you wassat
      1. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 5 September 2019 16: 02 New
        +2
        No, this money is still pulling from me. There is simply no place in the house to put diesel fuel with batteries. But one of my friend has already been left alone. He has a roof and a canopy over the pool, the whole house is supplied, and the batteries are in the barn. But they also press our electricians little by little, in 10 years they will not have their own stations, only the network.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 5 September 2019 20: 47 New
          +11
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          No, this money is still pulling from me. There is simply no place in the house to put diesel fuel with batteries. But one of my friend has already been left alone. He has a roof and a canopy over the pool, the whole house is supplied, and the batteries are in the barn. But they also press our electricians little by little, in 10 years they will not have their own stations, only the network.

          When your neighbor changes his entire battery of batteries every three years, ask him about the real economy in terms of content ...
          From installation, to the cost of land taxes, which he does not use aimlessly, keeping this place occupied by batteries. you need to be able to count absolutely everything.
          Yes Yes. including land tax.
          1. Zeev Zeev
            Zeev Zeev 6 September 2019 09: 00 New
            -3
            Not a neighbor, but a friend. The land tax for the shed with batteries is minimal, the more he lives in the village. Batteries gifts on the roof of the house and on a canopy above the pool.
          2. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 10 September 2019 13: 22 New
            +3
            Bravo, clearly and to the point. You can count the lost profit. To lovers of "greenery" - how much will the land allotted for the wind farm give profit?
    3. Yrec
      Yrec 5 September 2019 15: 30 New
      +28
      Any "green" generation requires either the return of surplus to the network or accumulation in batteries. The owners of electric networks will not agree to the first, they do not need this hemorrhoids. For the second, very expensive batteries are needed, which, firstly, not figs are not "green" by themselves, and secondly, they will not accumulate much. That's when there will be a breakthrough in the accumulation of electricity, then come.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 5 September 2019 16: 06 New
        -2
        Quote: Yrec
        Any "green" generation requires either the return of surplus to the network or accumulation in batteries.

        It’s not necessary at all - in the world hydroaccumulative power plants have long been used to accumulate water in case of excess electricity. Such a station is even in the suburbs.
        Quote: Yrec
        The second one needs very expensive batteries,

        These stations do not need ordinary batteries.
        Quote: Yrec
        That's when there will be a breakthrough in the accumulation of electricity, then come.

        The widespread use of PSPs is the solution to this problem, especially from the point of view of using excess moisture during spring floods.
        1. Ehanatone
          Ehanatone 5 September 2019 18: 54 New
          +5
          “It’s not necessary at all - in the world they have long been using pumped storage power plants to accumulate water in case of excess electricity”
          And the efficiency of all this mechanization, and even in its area, is not particularly reproducible ...
        2. Victor N
          Victor N 5 September 2019 19: 05 New
          0
          Everything is much more complicated, but long to explain.
        3. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 10 September 2019 13: 24 New
          +3
          Yes, both hydro and air offer. What is their efficiency? The cost of pumping water and air into batteries? Again, and the area for hydro and pneumatic batteries, can it be more profitable to use it differently?
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 10 September 2019 13: 57 New
            -1
            Quote: Okolotochny
            What is their efficiency? The cost of pumping water and air into batteries? Again, and the area for hydro and pneumatic batteries, can it be more profitable to use it differently?

            Do you even understand that at night you need to put in some surplus electricity in order to withdraw them back to the power grid during peak hours?
            This makes it possible to reduce the total power of all generating devices that are required to cover the peak loads of power grids.
            As for the "areas", it is precisely the water reserves that make it possible to reduce flood waters, which in themselves are a big problem. So, it was not for nothing that under the pea king the beams became old to block dams with dams, so that in summer there was a supply of water and groundwater would not run out.
    4. Constructor68
      Constructor68 5 September 2019 17: 06 New
      +12
      To prevent unnecessary boltalogy, I will explain two points:
      1. 180 thousand people are not required for servicing SES. A 25-45MW station is serviced by a change of operators, security and 3-5 technicians. Snow (even if it is 3-4 snowy area) slides under its own weight from an inclined plane. FEM (photoelectric module) heats up during operation, which accelerates the sliding of snow. Therefore, snow very rarely covers more than 30% of the FEM.
      2. SESs are most often built where it is expensive to lay power lines and there is no excess electricity in the network. For example, Mountain Altai. There 5 years ago there was almost a stone age. It is impossible to build a thermal power plant (ecological zone), hydroelectric power stations too, but there are a lot of towns, villages where electricity was turned on once a day for 2-3 hours. Built 5 SES and solved the problem. The same thing in Astrakhan, Buryatia, Orenburg
      1. _Sergei_
        _Sergei_ 5 September 2019 18: 49 New
        +8
        Snow when it slides away from it remains dirt. It must also be washed. This is the staff. Dust causes wind.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 5 September 2019 18: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: _Sergey_
          Snow when it slides away from it remains dirt. It must also be washed. This is the staff. Dust causes wind.

          This is done by a machine on which one operator launches a huge number of panels, similar to how they do when washing highway fences or information stands.
          1. _Sergei_
            _Sergei_ 5 September 2019 19: 00 New
            +4
            You can’t just wash it off, you also need to wipe it dry. Try to wash the car and leave. After half an hour, new dust will stick to it.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 5 September 2019 19: 16 New
              +3
              Quote: _Sergey_
              You can’t just wash it off, you also need to wipe it dry. Try to wash the car and leave. After half an hour, new dust will stick to it.

              All come up a long time ago
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 5 September 2019 20: 50 New
                +7
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: _Sergey_
                You can’t just wash it off, you also need to wipe it dry. Try to wash the car and leave. After half an hour, new dust will stick to it.

                All come up a long time ago


                How much does such a tractor cost?
                With such stray?
                And the tractor driver’s salary?
                What about fuel?
                And the salary of an accountant who considers the salary of a tractor driver?
                And lawn mowers. which do not allow to grow grass?
                Is there nothing about them too?

                correctly consider absolutely all costs ...
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 6 September 2019 13: 27 New
                  -1
                  Quote: SovAr238A

                  How much does such a tractor cost?
                  With such stray?
                  And the tractor driver’s salary?
                  What about fuel?
                  And the salary of an accountant who considers the salary of a tractor driver?
                  And lawn mowers. which do not allow to grow grass?
                  Is there nothing about them too?

                  correctly consider absolutely all costs ...

                  You need to be reminded how many people died in the accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station from a shift on duty and what resulted in its repair?
                  So there is no need to speculate on the tractor driver and tractor attachments - this is all a trifle compared to the cost of overhead in the production of electricity at traditional stations.
    5. Chaldon48
      Chaldon48 5 September 2019 17: 20 New
      +7
      There is nothing free, everything in our world, whether someone likes it or not, costs money. In order to get something from the "green" energy, you need to invest heavily in it, and even earlier it will be profitable to seriously invest in research or not, then design, etc.
      In short, free cheese only happens in a mousetrap.
    6. Normal ok
      Normal ok 5 September 2019 20: 13 New
      -8
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      Green energy has another huge minus - a decrease in dependence on hydrocarbons and oil and gas suppliers. winked

      That's it, that's why the author is sausage.
    7. regulus
      regulus 6 September 2019 00: 20 New
      -6
      There are countries that receive most of the energy from alternative sources, and the Russian Federation is not among them.
    8. AUL
      AUL 6 September 2019 10: 28 New
      -4
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      Green energy has another huge minus - a decrease in dependence on hydrocarbons and oil and gas suppliers.

      I read - he doubted who this mysterious author is - RWMos? Sechin or, after all, Miller?
      About snow removal in the Mojave Desert - it's powerful! good
    9. Andrey83
      Andrey83 6 September 2019 21: 40 New
      0
      http://geoenergetics.ru/2017/12/20/zelenaya-energiya-mechtaniya-i-realnost/

      http://geoenergetics.ru/2018/04/04/ideologiya-i-mifotvorchestvo-alternativnoj-energetiki/

      http://geoenergetics.ru/2018/04/12/vliyaniye-vie-na-stabilnost-energosistem/
    10. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 7 September 2019 13: 56 New
        -2
        Quote: max702
        Kapitsa on the futility of alternative energy
        On October 8, 1975, at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician Petr Leonidovich Kapitsa, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics three years later, made a conceptual report in which, based on basic physical principles, essentially buried all kinds "Alternative energy", with the exception of controlled thermonuclear fusion.

        As far as we know, almost 45 years after the forecast of the great scientist, we still have not received any "controlled thermonuclear fusion", and when he appears no one speaks. But alternative sources of electricity are being used more and more widely. And how the process goes further, it is difficult to predict, especially if you can increase the efficiency of solar panels to at least 30-40% (selenium or gallium arsenide-based converters). By the way, combined solar panels have already been developed that are used as heating elements to heat water and at the same time they convert solar energy into electricity. I think this will be a promising area for certain areas of residence of people.
  2. Mestny
    Mestny 5 September 2019 15: 28 New
    +13
    The most important thing is that to produce such an amount of energy as from traditional sources (especially nuclear power plants) will not work in principle. There is not so much space on Earth for solar panels and windmills.
    In total, taking into account efficiency, cost of production, and operation, all these "green" sources produce energy much more expensive.
    There are only 3 ways to solve this problem - to produce traditionally with a focus on nuclear power plants. Continue to develop other highly efficient sources, such as fusion reactors.
    And the third, the worst, is to reduce the Earth’s population to a figure that will be guaranteed to be provided with “green” energy sources.
    The first 2 all the same will gradually upset the balance on the planet, “warm up” it, which will lead to disaster anyway.
    And only the third, the same one, will allow us to maintain this balance, and live happily ever after. The truth is not for everyone.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 5 September 2019 15: 32 New
      -10
      In general, a small area is required in comparison with the Earth, for the satisfaction of 100% of all energy requirements from solar power plants.
      Big square for the whole world, smaller for the EU, smallest for Germany
      1. Mestny
        Mestny 5 September 2019 15: 50 New
        +10
        Will these squares satisfy all energy needs? Who told you this?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 5 September 2019 15: 52 New
          -4
          Everything, and it’s not difficult to calculate everything. We take the solar constant for an hour, we dominate the efficiency of the panels, we get energy per square meter per hour, then we dominate the KIUM since the panels do not work at night and so on. . Then we take the global energy consumption per hour, divide by the result obtained above and get the area.
          1. Mestny
            Mestny 5 September 2019 15: 58 New
            +6
            Well? Where are the calculations?
            The main thing to remember in the calculations is to take into account the efficiency of converters and batteries, and the decrease in efficiency of the panels themselves during operation. Well, the cost of all this equipment in such areas.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 5 September 2019 16: 35 New
              +1
              So you don’t trust a stranger, I have provided you with everything you need to do it yourself
          2. mark2
            mark2 5 September 2019 18: 34 New
            +7
            Yes. It would not be bad to take into account losses during the transmission of electricity from those squares to the EEC and Germany in particular. It is in Algeria Sahara and a lot of sun, but in Europe it’s somehow smaller. It happened geographically.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 5 September 2019 18: 43 New
              -2
              So in the south of Europe is also full of sun. And transmission losses are small.
              The main advantage of high voltage direct current power lines is the ability to transmit large volumes of electricity over long distances with less loss than AC power lines. Depending on the line voltage and current conversion method, losses can be reduced to 3% per 1000 km.
              1. Okolotochny
                Okolotochny 10 September 2019 13: 32 New
                +3
                And transmission losses are small.

                You can not read further. For direct current - then bring the cost of its equipment, in comparison, also alternating. Do you know that AC is used in Europe? Remodel all equipment in Europe and the world under permanent? To transfer electricity, substations are also needed, like on oil and gas wires. Their cost is variable and constant. When transmitted by wire from the resistance of the latter, the current decreases. How will you solve this problem? Substations. You are a dreamer.
      2. Ehanatone
        Ehanatone 5 September 2019 19: 02 New
        +4
        "A large square for the whole world, smaller for the EU, smallest for Germany"
        Two questions:
        Why so many minuses
        Why is it still not done ..?
        Germany, for example, is probably the most green in Europe, and things are still there, well, in the sense, by and large in thermal power plants ..
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 5 September 2019 16: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Mestny
      There is not so much space on Earth for solar panels and windmills.

      This is not so - North Africa, as indeed Central Asia, (Mongolia, the USA, Australia, etc.) is able to accommodate a huge number of solar panels, and excess electricity can be used to desalinate water that can be used for agricultural areas .
      Quote: Mestny
      Continue to develop other highly efficient sources, such as fusion reactors.

      We heard this from the sixties from Velikhov, but things didn’t go beyond conversations.
      Quote: Mestny
      And the third, the worst, is to reduce the Earth’s population to a figure that will be guaranteed to be provided with “green” energy sources.

      We heard this theory - it remains to decide whether we will begin the process of reduction with the USA or Europe.
      Quote: Mestny
      The first 2 all the same will gradually upset the balance on the planet, “warm up” it, which will lead to disaster anyway.

      As for the Earth’s “warming up”, this is clearly overkill, if only because the disappearance of ice caps at the poles, which are associated in particular with the appearance of the combustion products of thermal power plants on their surface, will bring more warming up to the planet than “umbrellas” made from solar panels that partially reflect heat to the upper atmosphere.
      1. Ehanatone
        Ehanatone 5 September 2019 19: 05 New
        +2
        Why is it still not done ..?
        Germany, for example, is probably the most green in Europe, and things are still there, well, in the sense, by and large in thermal power plants ..
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 5 September 2019 19: 25 New
          -3
          Quote: Ehanatone
          Why is it still not done ..?
          Germany, for example, is probably the most green in Europe, and things are still there, well, in the sense, by and large in thermal power plants ..

          Here the big question is where the batteries are located, because the north the region, the less solar energy per square meter falls on average. For example, in the Central European strip of Russia in the summer accounts for 1 square. a meter of surface is approximately 700 - 800 W of solar energy, and in more southern regions this figure can reach 1000 - 1200 W per meter.
          That is why it is more profitable to place solar panels in Africa, to use their energy for desalination of sea water, which then apply for irrigation. Such a scheme will allow the transfer of agricultural production from Europe, but Western countries are unlikely to do so.
          1. Ehanatone
            Ehanatone 5 September 2019 19: 34 New
            +4
            "it is more profitable to place solar panels in Africa, to use their energy to desalinate sea water, which then can be used for irrigation"
            Of course, it is clear that Guinea-Bissau does not have the opportunity to invest in such projects, but I repeat again:
            Germany, for example, the greenest in Europe - FSE nuclear power plants were closed, and things are still there, well, in the sense, by and large in thermal power plants ...
            And the strangest thing is, why put so much energy into SP-2, when there is such an almost total lack of support! ?? ...
            It seems to me that a proposal of some Tunisia will meet a very warm understanding, ...
            Well this is for energy ...
            About agricultural here I’m not ready to say anything
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 5 September 2019 20: 01 New
              -1
              Quote: Ehanatone
              It seems to me that a proposal of some Tunisia will meet a very warm understanding, ...
              Well this is for energy ...

              Serious scientists back in the sixties calculated the landscaping of North Africa at least in the 100-200 km band in order to change the desertification process and somehow change the climate there to create more comfortable living conditions for the entire Mediterranean region.
              But then, solar energy was too expensive. Now the situation has changed, and the interests of several parties can immediately coincide - both power engineers, and environmentalists, and agricultural producers. So, as a famous poet sang, "it’s not yet evening ..."
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 5 September 2019 20: 58 New
            +9
            Quote: ccsr

            That is why it is more profitable to place solar panels in Africa, to use their energy for desalination of sea water, which then apply for irrigation. Such a scheme will allow the transfer of agricultural production from Europe, but Western countries are unlikely to do so.


            Now calculate the cost of projects for the disposal of sea salt, and sorry it turns out almost 40 grams per liter of water ...
            With a cubic meter of water 40 kilograms of salt.
            per hour of operation of a normal desalination system giving 50 cubic meters of cleaned. but still industrial water - we get 2 tons of salt.
            per day - 48 tons ...

            Have you ever thought about this?
            Or just floods your mind filled?
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 6 September 2019 13: 31 New
              -4
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Now calculate the cost of projects for the disposal of sea salt, and sorry it turns out almost 40 grams per liter of water ...

              Sea salt is a valuable raw material both for food production and in the chemical industry.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Have you ever thought about this?
              Or just floods your mind filled?

              Have you ever thought that the development of salt formations also requires huge costs?
              So, finding a use of sea salt will not be a big problem - they will also pay extra for power engineers for it. You are simply not in the subject.
        2. Avior
          Avior 5 September 2019 22: 14 New
          0
          Germany is full of wind and solar
      2. ab2020
        ab2020 5 September 2019 22: 28 New
        +3
        Tell me, how to transfer electricity from the desert of Mongolia, for example, to places where this energy is needed? Thousands of km of power lines?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 6 September 2019 13: 37 New
          -3
          Quote: ab2020
          Tell me, how to transfer electricity from the desert of Mongolia, for example, to places where this energy is needed? Thousands of km of power lines?

          Transfer energy-intensive production to areas where there will be cheap electricity and work on a rotational basis. This is practiced in our North, so I don’t see a problem in resolving this issue. Coal is imported to Ukraine from South Africa and the USA - so bauxites can also be brought to Mongolia if desired.
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 10 September 2019 13: 35 New
            +3
            Transfer energy-intensive production to areas where there will be cheap electricity

            Wow! Sound the cost of this project?
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 10 September 2019 13: 50 New
              -3
              Quote: Okolotochny
              Wow! Sound the cost of this project?

              And can you voice how much next Chernobyl will cost us, or the destruction of the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, so that we can objectively calculate how much a watt of electricity from these stations will cost us?
              1. Okolotochny
                Okolotochny 10 September 2019 19: 58 New
                +2
                Got it, you only have a fix idea. You are asked for numbers, and your answer is "Fool himself."
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 10 September 2019 20: 04 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  Got it, you only have a fix idea.

                  You didn’t understand correctly - I just suggested that you tell me what you proposed to do at your request.
                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  You are asked for numbers,

                  Do you think that I simply must know them? I told you about the "sunny village" in the Krasnodar Territory, which I myself saw in the mid-eighties - is this not enough for you? If not enough, then look on the Internet for yourself what this village cost, or make a request to the Quantum NGO.
  3. Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
    Dmitriy Zadorozhniy 5 September 2019 15: 40 New
    +10
    I apologize for the ads on YouTube aftershock channel Sergey Brigodin. There he undresses in detail for greens, with figures, graphs and other things. Who cares, you can see.
  4. demo
    demo 5 September 2019 15: 41 New
    -12
    Such a letter has come.
    With accompanying documents.
    And now this is serious.
    Very seriously.
    Using the free energy of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    But I think that people, if they get out "up" will definitely be left without a head.
    For the end of Gazprom, Rosneft and similar companies.

    We offer for sale electricity that will be produced at
    the most environmentally friendly power plants in the world using Terragenerators,
    working on hybrid alternative power supplies at the most
    the latest know-how technologies (from the energy generated by the Earth) in any
    country of the world, in any climatic zones, in any weather, at any time of the year
    (including arctic night), at any time of the day - 24 / 7 / 365.
    We are ready to supply and install all the necessary equipment at our own expense,
    developed by a group of our scientists in Germany, the USA, Canada and Russia (including
    protection and return on investment under the laws on protection and return
    investments, customs and tax privileges). We have already spent quite
    successful testing of our equipment (the basis of the principle of which we
    given at the end of this sentence) in a variety of extreme conditions
    of our planet, and therefore we are ready to safely invest billions of dollars in investments
    construction of power plants with declared characteristics.
    In fact, we are ready to invest in this region, which is environmentally friendly at 100%
    clean (at 100% "green") electricity (we remind you that even a hydroelectric power station does not give
    completely green electricity, because it adversely affects the eco-system,
    violating the bio-balance in nature, wind energy is also not "green",
    for thousands of birds fall under the millstones of wind generators, especially during periods
    seasonal migrations, not to mention the dirtier electro-thermal stations like
    State District Power Station, Thermal Power Station, NPP, etc.).
    The minimum capacity of our power plant is 1 GigaWatt. To install it
    a specific customer is required (e.g. aluminum GOK), which
    guaranteed monthly will pay the specified amount of electricity for
    fixed price. The contract must be concluded for a period of 21 to 99 years.
    To avoid energy payment problems, as a guarantee of future
    Payment options are considered: bank guarantee (BG) or another
    financial instrument (including LC, SBLC, BF, CD, BPU, MT-103 / 23 / 32, BD, Debenture
    Blue chips, BPN, etc.); or joining the founders of this consumer with
    controlling stake; contractual penalties
    in case of late payments, up to the full transfer of 100% of the share of this
    enterprises in our property; other options. Power of this type
    power plants can be increased to any value necessary for
    specific consumer.

    Etc.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 5 September 2019 15: 52 New
      +6
      I'm ready to argue - and 100% prepayment of the "project".
      1. demo
        demo 5 September 2019 17: 03 New
        -2
        No.
        Build at their own expense.
        Property is not transferred to the customer.
        Operate on their own.
        Invested money pays off through the sale of electricity.
        The term is up to 99 years.
      2. demo
        demo 5 September 2019 17: 04 New
        -2
        I had to argue with you, but I didn’t think !!!!!!! hi
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 5 September 2019 16: 21 New
      +12
      Quote: demo
      Power of this type
      power plants can be increased to any value necessary for
      specific consumer.

      Etc.

      This reminded me of a complaint of one person when he read in an advertisement that they were selling a means to increase a member, ordered on the Internet, and they sent him a magnifying glass.
    3. Amateur
      Amateur 5 September 2019 17: 20 New
      +7
      Great stocks of gold mines. Each share is a dollar. They will give at least five hundred percent profit, are not taxed. The Blue Mole Mine (Oh Henry, Noble Rogue)

      Times change, terminology too. Only the essence remains (Rusnano)
    4. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 18: 40 New
      +3
      Quote: demo
      For the end of Gazprom, Rosneft and similar companies.

      In general, international studies on this topic show that in the case of the transition of all transport to electricity, there will be: 1) the price of hydrocarbons will increase at times 2) the consumption of hydrocarbons will increase at times 3) 90% of hydrocarbon companies will go bankrupt. Here, the majority (like mine at one time) will get stuck in their brains and the question will be, “is the price of the goods rising, the sales are growing, and the companies go bankrupt? Is that just like shit?” And if you figure it out, it turns out that the remaining 10% of the companies will be taken over the share of these 90% as well as the entire volume of the grown market. But the point here is that in any production it is important to strike a balance between the optimization, scaling and diversification of this production. And this balance is upset by these 90% of hydrocarbon companies; they optimize as much as possible by sacrificing scaling and diversification. For example, there is such a setup as a “distillation column”, its production costs a lot of money, delivery costs a lot of money, work requires energy and raw materials, and instead of making a column for 5 \ 10 \ 100 types of the final product, they make a column for 1 \ 2 \ 3 type of product, or for example, when designing an oil refinery, they optimize it for one raw material and one product, and do not introduce the need for modernization of this plant in the design conditions, as a result, with the slightest changes in the market, the company loses money and goes bankrupt. And just during the transition to electric transport, the market will rebalance, hydrocarbons will be processed not into fuel, but into chemical semi-finished products (for oils, plastics, etc. The need for this will increase due to the resettlement of people), and in chemistry there will be more stringent requirements to TTX product, and most companies will not be able to withstand them. This problem was even raised in the media when Asian companies (for example, from South Korea) broke off contracts with American companies because of impurities interfering with the operation of their plants (impurities were due to shale oil, and the problem was not so much in impurities as in their variability).
    5. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 5 September 2019 19: 20 New
      +3
      Two questions:
      Why are there so many minuses, have the Gazprom and Lukotsk residents really run
      Why is it still not done ..?
      Germany, for example, is probably the most green in Europe - FSEs were closed down, and things are still there, well, in the sense, by and large in thermal power plants ...
      And the strangest thing is, why put so much energy into SP-2, when there is such an almost total lack of support! ?? ...
    6. Kelwin
      Kelwin 5 September 2019 23: 39 New
      +5
      Such a letter has come.
      With accompanying documents.

      I printed it and hung it on a board in the office, when it is sad - I will re-read it))
      This especially delivered:
      <... using Terragenerators,
      working on hybrid alternative power supplies at the most
      the latest know-how ... ...>

      burned all the technology)) gigawatt pulse straight))
  5. Pavel57
    Pavel57 5 September 2019 16: 04 New
    +8
    Manufacturers of green energy and equipment for its production also work for money, which means they can afford the lobby. By the way, about 30 years ago I was dumbfounded by the question, and who finances the green movement?
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 5 September 2019 16: 11 New
      +8
      The “green” movement is active strictly in those countries that: a - are preparing to enter the "golden billion", and b - in which regimes are not acceptable to the world gendarme.
      For the first, everything is clear. Their population has already been driven into their heads that “green” energy is clean air (for them), and cheap energy (also for them). Where does the rest come from (clothing, chemistry, medicine, electronics, etc.), how much energy is needed to produce all this - they are not interested.
      Well with the second all the more clear. If an objectionable country produces oil, and this is not the United States or its friends, it means that it violates the ecology, such a country must be destroyed, and reserves should be transferred to the right, democratic green hands.
    2. _Sergei_
      _Sergei_ 5 September 2019 18: 56 New
      +2
      Basically, China pushes green energy. They have a very widespread production of windmills and solar panels. Products must be sold. I somehow dealt with this issue. In short, very expensive. A 3kW windmill with a battery, a converter from constant to variable costs 450 thousand rubles. The term of operation is 12-15 years.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 6 September 2019 07: 35 New
        +3
        The batteries will not work for 10 years, the first banks can fall in a year. Practice.
      2. Old bun
        Old bun 6 September 2019 20: 06 New
        +1
        I agree! expensive! I have 5 kW in my village house.
        per month runs in the summer of 1200 rubles and in the winter of 2000 rubles.
        for 15 years it will turn out 288 rubles. not profitable. see)
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 7 September 2019 14: 07 New
          -5
          Quote: Old Bun
          I agree! expensive! I have 5 kW in my village house.
          per month runs in the summer of 1200 rubles and in the winter of 2000 rubles.
          for 15 years it will turn out 288 rubles. not profitable. see)

          A mistake was made in the calculations - firstly, the growth in the cost of electricity over 15 years was not taken into account, and secondly, the growth in consumption of electricity itself was not taken into account. And thirdly, it is not taken into account that you can sell excess electricity from a windmill. So not everything is so simple.
          1. _Sergei_
            _Sergei_ 7 September 2019 14: 12 New
            +2
            We can’t sell electricity to private owners. All that I have developed, I myself must consume. We don’t even have counters now that are unwinding, or they get on the stopper, or they still consider it a plus.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 7 September 2019 14: 51 New
              -4
              Quote: _Sergey_
              We can’t sell electricity to private owners.

              In Germany and in Europe, this is a common practice. So you should not focus only on our troubles of small-town energy producers - they do not need competitors. But if they are legally obligated, the issue will be decided by itself.
        2. Ruslan_1976
          Ruslan_1976 9 September 2019 10: 10 New
          0
          5 kw? It can not be. A normal residential building eats at least 150-200 kW per month, even without air conditioning or electric heating.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 9 September 2019 12: 01 New
            0
            Quote: Ruslan_1976
            5 kw? It can not be. A normal residential building eats at least 150-200 kW per month, even without air conditioning or electric heating.

            Per diem 5 kW x 30 days = 150 kW
  6. garri-lin
    garri-lin 5 September 2019 16: 07 New
    +9
    It is not strange, but green energy is subsidized, not only in the monetary sense, but also in the energy one. To produce the same windmill you need to spend energy and a lot. Starting from energy costs for the extraction of raw materials and ending with the cost of energy for installation. And there is an opinion that that windmill is not able to generate an equivalent amount of energy. They reckoned with batteries and recycling. Thus, it is impossible to switch completely to green. Just can not reproduce.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 5 September 2019 16: 16 New
      +7
      And there are still maintenance costs. With huge areas such as SES, they turn into really beyond.
      But lovers of clean energy do not know about this. Their gadgets are charging from a wall outlet.
      1. Constructor68
        Constructor68 5 September 2019 16: 50 New
        -5
        What for example huge ??????
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 18: 48 New
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      To produce the same windmill you need to spend energy and a lot.

      This is not important at all, because there are places where there is an excess of renewable energy and there is nowhere to spend this excess, here you can produce windmills in these places and then transport it to where there is not enough energy. In general, the error of your statement is that it does not take into account the geography of sources and consumers.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 5 September 2019 19: 50 New
        +4
        A wind turbine during the operation is not able to produce the amount of energy necessary for the full cycle of creating a similar wind turbine. And this is exactly the windmill whose efficiency is high. They can be produced at the expense of atomic energy and set where to comb. But it is impossible to completely transfer energy to windmills.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 21: 23 New
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          But it is impossible to completely transfer energy to windmills.

          It is impossible to completely transfer all energy to hydroelectric power stations \ thermal power plants \ nuclear power plants, but this does not interfere with their use.
          You still do not understand the essence of my post, suppose you have two regions, one in the mountains, one in the steppes, the first is building a hydropower station, the second wind farm, the first plants are being built, the second collective farms, and both the hydropower station and wind farm in your the scheme goes unprofitable, because their construction requires more energy than they produce. Well, or examples of wind farm / wind farm in remote regions. That is, I repeat, you do not take into account geography.

          ps I do not argue, and I completely agree with you regarding the corruption and loss-making of wind farm projects (especially European ones), but here the problem lies not in the wind parks themselves, but in administrative ways to stimulate their development. A simple example, I now know how to increase the profitability of the wind farm, and I can prove it in practice with funding, but I can’t organize a business because I am immediately crushed by other companies with financial, economic, industrial and legal resources, and the whole problem is that innovation those that increase profitability are not suitable for patents (it is possible to patent but there are many ways to get around).
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 5 September 2019 21: 31 New
            +2
            Now I understand you. The most obvious and vivid example of what you are describing is the windmills from American films of the mid-20 century, round such, multi-lobed and creaky. In agricultural areas it was more profitable to buy an expensive windmill than to pull tens of kilometers of wires. By the way, why are hydroelectric plants unprofitable? They have an exploitation period of almost hundreds of years. I mean dams.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 22: 15 New
              -3
              Quote: garri-lin
              By the way, why are hydroelectric plants unprofitable?

              Because concrete and construction equipment were created due to the readily available energy of the burned fuel and they were deleted from the calculation system.
              Quote: garri-lin
              Now I understand you. The most obvious and vivid example of what you are describing is the windmills from American films of the mid-20th century, round such, multi-lobed and creaky.

              Only in part. yes there it was more profitable to build windmills + pumps instead of manually carrying water for irrigation or building kilometer canals, the same thing now with the delivery of combustible fuel in remote regions. BUT the essence lies much deeper. "math is not wrong, maths are wrong!" here how much will two drops plus two drops? (options 1 \ 2 \ 3 \ 4 will not be correct tongue ) here and here you were offered the answers "1 \ 2 \ 3 \ 4", but in reality everything is much more complicated because in real life we ​​have more mathematicians, not mathematicians. hi
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 5 September 2019 22: 43 New
                +3
                Well hes a long-playing thing. And by the way, some hydroelectric power plants were built to supply the metallurgical giants. And those giants over the past decades have given so much metal that your statements are somehow unconvincing. And about the windmills in America, there were not only purely mechanical pumps typical of the beginning of the 20th century, but also wind generators on similar lines in the middle of the 20th century. Load a few light bulbs and a radio. Even the voltage was not pda in the outlet.
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 6 September 2019 13: 55 New
      -1
      Quote: garri-lin
      Thus, it is impossible to switch completely to green. Just can not reproduce.

      This is a misconception - solar panels have a steady tendency to reduce the cost of watts of electricity, but the cost of a watt itself is constantly growing. As far as I know, even previously built solar converters for 12-15 years of operation (this is the maximum service life at the current stage) not only fully pay for themselves, but also give profit to their owners.
      By the way, in the Krasnodar Territory in the 70-80s, an experimental solar village was built, where all the energy was extracted from solar panels. The panels were used those that were rejected by the military acceptance for spacecraft - so instead of throwing them away for processing, silicon converters found another use.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 6 September 2019 14: 04 New
        +2
        15 years. These are 3 sets of batteries. Well, or two, if I agree, it is put up with the loss of capacity. Further count? Or yourself. And space technology villages are cool. Only there the price of the panel was like a village budget for ten years. They themselves wrote that it was a free marriage.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 6 September 2019 15: 09 New
          -2
          Quote: garri-lin
          15 years. These are 3 sets of batteries. Well, or two, if I agree, it is put up with the loss of capacity. Further count? Or yourself.

          Nonsense - even the current car battery lasts 6-7 years, if it is not ruined. I saw batteries that worked after 9 years, but not so good. By the way, where did you get the idea that instead of a traditional battery, you can’t immediately send excess electricity to the network (if there is one), and when it is not enough, take it from the network? That will not need batteries.

          Quote: garri-lin
          Only there the price of the panel was like a village budget for ten years. They themselves wrote that it was a free marriage.

          It was FIFTY years ago - yes, during this time their cost has decreased several times, and now the batteries are cheaper. And do not forget that the huge cost was associated with obtaining the MAXIMUM efficiency of the panels, due to the high cost of delivery to orbit. And for terrestrial conditions, you can drastically reduce the cost if you reduce the purity of the grown silicon crystal.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 6 September 2019 15: 22 New
            +1
            Do you know the level of discharge of an automobile battery on a working car? For 5-6 years, the actual capacity decreases by almost 2 times. And this despite the fact that during this time usually there are only a few cycles of a full discharge, and at the Solntsechne power plants they will be daily. For the experiment, discharge the uninterruptible power supply unit to zero daily and see how long its batteries last. Selling energy during the day to buy it at night is good. But who will produce it at night if all power plants turn green? Green energy is an expensive toy. And not self-supporting. Plus requiring to create a very dirty and environmentally friendly technical processes. The same batteries.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 6 September 2019 18: 49 New
              -2
              Quote: garri-lin
              For 5-6 years, the actual capacity decreases by almost 2 times.

              Do you have such statistics? Do you even know that the drop in battery capacity depends on the destruction of the plates, including from vibrations and shocks, from temperature changes, etc. In the stationary version, they break down much less, so you do not have to attract the operating conditions of car batteries to stationary .
              Quote: garri-lin
              Selling energy during the day to buy it at night is good. But who will produce it at night if all power plants turn green?

              I know this cheap trick in disputes with opponents - to bring situations to absurdity and assume that this is what discussion is about. Literate people already understand that "green energy" will occupy only a certain niche in energy production. By the way, tidal stations operate at night.
              Quote: garri-lin
              Green energy is an expensive toy.

              In the 19th century, aluminum was a very expensive metal, and was valued as a precious metal. And now beer cans are made of it, and thrown away like garbage. So do not think that always "green energy" will be an expensive toy.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 6 September 2019 19: 23 New
                +2
                And you are aware that the process of plate disintegration begins with a discharge to the level of 20 25 percent of capacity. And from vibration, plates of acid batteries stopped decaying a long time ago. The average life of a high-quality battery of an uninterruptible power supply unit is 5 years. Cheap die in three. Working conditions are much more favorable than SES with its nightly discharge. This time. Two read my first post and do not bring to the point of absurdity. And in Russian, in white, he wrote that green energy is subsidized both in terms of money and energy. It cannot fully satisfy needs and is self-reproducing. Three, why did you get the idea that tidal ES is green energy? I know the fourth about alluminits. Alluminium spoons on secular feasts were considered the top of wealth. And why has everything changed? People learned how to mine allminium from ore using electricity and learned how to create electric current in an inexpensive and massive way. That's all the progress. At the SES And the wind farm you will not go far. By the way, if you understand energy issues like this, tell me what is the absurdity of conventional batteries in terms of energy efficiency?
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 6 September 2019 19: 44 New
                  -1
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  The average life of a high-quality battery of an uninterruptible power supply unit is 5 years.

                  I don’t know how it works for you, but I have an old laptop, it’s about 14 years old, so it still has a battery, although of course it’s not like it was at the beginning of operation.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Working conditions are much more favorable than SES with its nightly discharge. This time.

                  Full bullshit - the battery put a larger capacity, and do not allow discharge to 20%. The cost of 55 and 100 ampere / h of a car battery varies by 1000 rubles, or even less. So do not go hungry and buy a large-capacity battery - it will serve you much longer.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Three, why did you get the idea that tidal ES is green energy?

                  Since they do not consume energy.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  People learned how to mine allminium from ore using electricity and learned how to create electric current in an inexpensive and massive way. That's all the progress.

                  This will also be the case with inexpensive solar panels - they will begin to cover all the roofs of houses, and insert them into the cladding glass panels in all buildings.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  By the way, if you understand energy issues like this, tell me what is the absurdity of conventional batteries in terms of energy efficiency?

                  In cyclic HIT, the cost of obtaining mA / h is significantly lower than that of disposable ones. And it is absurd to use them or not, everyone decides for himself.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 6 September 2019 20: 29 New
                    +1
                    The points. The laptop is a lithium-ion battery. They are dirty in production and difficult to dispose of and cost much more acid. Although there is a tendency to switch to lithium, it is very expensive. The acid resource is less. Two. Supply 2 times more batteries and prevent them from deep discharge or buy two sets of batteries. In any case, costs are growing and not a little, as well as environmental damage during production and utilization. Three. Hydropower plants also do not consume energy. Also green energy? Or is the fact that the environment is disturbed in the tidal ES paradise is no longer considered? Four. There are many examples when such investments, having lost subsidies, quietly perished. And five, I mean ordinary batteries are not batteries. What is the absurdity of disposable batteries in terms of energy efficiency.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 7 September 2019 13: 40 New
                      -1
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The points. The laptop is a lithium-ion battery. They are dirty in production and difficult to dispose of and cost much more acid.

                      On points - you decided that it is necessary to put batteries, and not use the network, to return excess electricity. Moreover, no one forces the use of lithium-ion batteries, at least because of their high cost.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The acid resource is less. Two.

                      So the service life of 6-8 years is not enough for you? Are you sure that such a battery will not last longer if it is used in stationary conditions? At least we haven’t changed the acids for a three-machine generator for ten years - that's for sure.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      In any case, costs are rising

                      Energy costs are also constantly growing.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Three. Hydropower plants also do not consume energy. Also green energy?

                      Yes. But this "green energy" is destructive in terms of creating flooded and marshy areas in most of our country.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Or is the fact that the environment is disturbed in the tidal ES paradise is no longer considered? Four.

                      Tidal stations practically do not violate the environment, because They are placed on limited flooded areas, which are already under water during high tides.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      There are many examples when such investments, having lost subsidies, quietly perished.

                      There are many examples where the cost of producing the same aluminum has plummeted.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      And five, I mean ordinary batteries are not batteries.

                      So it was necessary to write. By the way, they belong to the HIT.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      What is the absurdity of disposable batteries in terms of energy efficiency.

                      I don’t know what you saw it in, but I know that they are being released by hundreds of millions, and this suggests that they did not find alternatives.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 7 September 2019 14: 20 New
                        0
                        And again, we will return to the fact that SES are subsidized in energy. That is, they cannot become completely self-sufficient. Which I claimed. The question is how energy companies will behave when 50% of customers want to sell energy to them during the day and buy it back at night. I think that the pricing policy and everything else will change, but with a high degree of likelihood, such customers will simply be sent. So energy storage is our everything. And storing large volumes of energy is expensive and environmentally friendly. Conclusion SES subsidized.
                        Batteries, life of 6-8 years, which I said for 15 years 2 sets. Double expenses for savings, and so considerable.
                        What does the cost of transporting energy?
                        PES spoil the marine ecology as well as hydroelectric power plants spoil (more precisely, change) the terrestrial.
                        However, aluminum cores are mass-produced, but fields of idle windmills in Canada or sand-filled SES panels are present. Despite the huge investment in the creation.
                        So I wrote the batteries. And not batteries. They are both HIT.
                      2. ccsr
                        ccsr 7 September 2019 14: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And storing large volumes of energy is expensive and environmentally friendly. Conclusion SES subsidized.

                        Raise water to great heights when there is excess electricity, and when peak loads occur, let it flow to the turbines to generate electricity.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Batteries, life of 6-8 years, which I said for 15 years 2 sets.

                        They are not always needed everywhere - in settlements, for example, you can do without them.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        What does the cost of transporting energy?

                        And the fact that they also increase, which means that the cost of a watt will increase, is a fact.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        So I wrote the batteries.

                        I did not understand what you wanted to know with your question.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 7 September 2019 15: 13 New
                        +1
                        1. To raise water is cool. In the framework of Moscow. As part of a private country house, it will be somewhat expensive. More expensive than batteries. You in your ideas go farther and farther towards the absurd.
                        2. Why do not I need batteries in the village? The population just spends electricity inversely with the ability to produce the ego SES. Prom enterprises are more uniform.
                        3. The cost of everything will always grow. Alas, we live in a system of poor credit economy, which is based on inflation progress. An increase in energy prices will cause an increase in the price of everything. And including the maintenance of SES.
                        4. The battery is the most non-energy-efficient item from widespread use. Plus it’s also not very eco-friendly. Why aren't greens struggling with batteries? Yes, and enjoy.
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 7 September 2019 15: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        1. To raise water is cool. In the framework of Moscow.

                        Within the Moscow region, this already exists.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        As part of a private country house, it will be somewhat expensive.

                        You, as always, bring the discussion to the point of absurdity - PSPs are built and operated not by private owners, but by large companies.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        2. Why do not I need batteries in the village?

                        To reduce the cost of watts generated by solar panels.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Alas, we live in a system of poor credit economy, which is based on inflation progress.

                        This chatter is not even about us, but about the direction in which humanity will move in the production of electricity.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Why aren't greens struggling with batteries? Yes, and enjoy.

                        Because there was a time when no one bothered with ecology at all, and here they burned forests in Europe.
                        But the batteries can not be abandoned at this stage - they have no alternative.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The battery is the most non-energy-efficient item from widespread use.

                        A dubious statement, especially considering that in every apartment at least 3-10 batteries are used every day. But the fact that the majority has a hammer, pliers and other tools in the apartment, which is used extremely rarely, but energy and resources were spent on its production, for some reason does not bother you. Can you fight with windmills?
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 7 September 2019 15: 42 New
                        0
                        Well, is there a similar station in the suburbs and how is it connected with green energy? The daily differences in consumption are simply compensated.
                        2. About the absurd in more detail if possible. You suggested that you accumulate energy by the method of water intake.
                        3. We give up the batteries. And what will we feed in the afternoon from SES? Light bulbs? TVs? Electricity requirements during the day for private users are minimal.
                        4. The direction of humanity is more or less clear. CHP on gas. NPP. Hydroelectric power station. Well, everything is as usual.
                        5. Classic energy also has no alternative. PDA and battery powered.
                        6. There is no alternative to batteries and power and hammers. And you are fighting windmills. Only as mills the non-alternativity of modern energy.
                      6. ccsr
                        ccsr 8 September 2019 09: 45 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Well, is there a similar station in the suburbs and how is it connected with green energy?

                        Actually, the question was how to accumulate excess electricity - you probably forgot the essence of the discussion.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        We will refuse batteries. And what will we feed in the afternoon from SES? Light bulbs? TVs? Electricity requirements during the day for private users are minimal.

                        There are millions of such consumers, and the total power consumption is not so small. And taking into account the content of power lines and other equipment for the transmission of electricity, these are considerable amounts. So in remote and sparsely populated areas, alternative energy is more cost-effective.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        5. Classic energy also has no alternative.

                        Where did you see that I challenged this?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Only as mills the non-alternativity of modern energy.

                        Yes, you are just a miserable liar - I did not put forward such crazy ideas, you just decided to ascribe to me what I did not say. I spoke that green energy has its own niche, and it remains to be seen what percentage of generated electricity will be received from it in 15-20 years.
                        Ten years ago, I had only incandescent bulbs, and now there is not a single one - even in a car. And where are those wise men who said about fifteen years ago that LED lamps will always be unstoppable?
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 September 2019 11: 07 New
                        -1
                        Well, since the brain can no longer contain the events of recent days, then flip through our conversation before it begins and re-read your first post. You just refute the non-alternativity of classical energy, you say that the cost of the watt feeds and advertises solar panels. Tobish is doing exactly what you refuse in the last post. What’s Bulgakov’s there? "I congratulate you Mr. Vrahami !!!" Beautifully changed shoes. From skis to slippers.
                      8. ccsr
                        ccsr 8 September 2019 16: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You just refute the non-alternativity of classical energy, you say that the cost of the watt feeds and advertises solar panels.

                        You are lying about the non-alternative, because I only argued that the cost of a watt from solar panels has been constantly decreasing for many years, but the cost of the watt itself, produced by traditional methods, is constantly growing.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Beautifully changed shoes. From skis to slippers.

                        Your fantasies have nothing to do with what I have stated - you are just a miserable verbiage, who wants to refute the obvious, which is that the percentage growth of "green energy" in total electricity production is constantly increasing, and this is a fact.
    4. minus
      minus 7 September 2019 15: 34 New
      +1
      And my old laptop also works! And imagine, it works even if the battery is removed at all! Fiction, isn't it? How many cycles did your battery charge / disconnect from the wall outlet / discharge to zero / charge? How long will he work without charging? Regarding the car, the battery is discharged mainly only when the engine starts! Well, or if you have powerful music! The rest of the time it is maintained in a charged state! For example, a car type 6st55 complete with a solar panel, a controller and a 21-inch TV is killed during continuous operation for a year and a half!
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 7 September 2019 15: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Minus
        And my old laptop also works! And imagine, it works even if the battery is removed at all!

        Quote: Minus
        Fiction, isn't it?

        Even without a network? This is fantastic, I agree with you.
        Quote: Minus
        How many cycles did your battery charge / disconnect from the wall outlet / discharge to zero / charge?

        What makes you think that the battery in the buffer mode with the solar battery works in this mode, especially considering that the power consumption drops at night? By the way, the big problem of thermal and nuclear power plants is that the output power for them is abnormal. Not everyone likes to remember this, but it is a fact.
        Quote: Minus
        Regarding the car, the battery is discharged mainly only when the engine starts!

        You obviously have not heard about daily self-discharge within the range of 1-1,5 percent, as well as about signaling consumption. Leave the car for a month, and then measure the battery capacity - then you will find out how the capacity disappears.
        Quote: Minus
        For example, a car type 6st55 complete with a solar panel, a controller and a 21-inch TV is killed during continuous operation for a year and a half!

        And where can I find the scientific report on this work? Or did you check it on your knee? By the way, why didn’t you use two batteries for a hundred ampere-hours - certainly they would work for you for six or seven years. Avaricious pays twice - has it not yet reached you?
        1. minus
          minus 7 September 2019 16: 24 New
          +1
          I had Siesta TV, with a panel and a controller. Serial. So first hand! But what about two batteries that ten didn’t immediately offer to power the TV ??? How to use the battery in the buffer mode in the evening and at night in the absence of electricity? Self-discharge of 1,5 percent reduces the capacity not fatally, the signaling consumption is negligible! Once again, how many full charge / discharge cycles will the battery withstand heavy loads ??? Your option with increasing battery capacity will increase operating costs ... The system will never pay off!
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 8 September 2019 09: 36 New
          -1
          Quote: Minus
          And what about two batteries, that just ten did not offer to power the TV ??

          This would not hurt, given that in autumn and winter there is no sun for several days.
          Quote: Minus
          How to use the battery in the buffer mode in the evening and at night in the absence of electricity?

          The battery is actually needed for those cases when there is not enough electricity from solar panels. And it is used in buffer mode - what annoys you in this?
          Quote: Minus
          Self-discharge of 1,5 percent reduces capacity is not fatal,

          Up to 30-40% per month while you are on summer vacation.
          Quote: Minus
          Once again, how many full charge / discharge cycles will the battery withstand heavy loads ???

          Smart people try to avoid such a regime. In this case, you can use batteries of greater power to less ruin the battery.
          Quote: Minus
          Your option with increasing battery capacity will increase operating costs ... The system will never pay off!

          Tell this to Europeans and Americans who place solar panels on the roof of their homes. So far, in this matter, everything is hindered by energy companies:
          The situation may soon radically change. Owners of private solar panels with power up to 15 kW can be hoped for the order of free connection to local electricity networks and even to receive payments for electricity supplied to the network. This hope is given by the recent Order of the Vice President to the Government of the Russian Federation on stimulating the development of microgeneration based on renewable energy sources of February 17, 2017. It is possible that soon any owner of a solar battery connected to the network through the corresponding network photoelectric inverter will be able to receive a small compensation for the excess solar energy sent to the network. It is assumed that the current market price in the wholesale electricity market will be used for payments.
  • _Sergei_
    _Sergei_ 7 September 2019 14: 18 New
    0
    On windmills and solar power stations are gel or alkaline batteries. They serve longer acid, but also cost much more.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 7 September 2019 14: 37 New
      +1
      Well, that's about it. Green energy needs 1 to produce. 2, save until use. Both processes are expensive.
  • Vol4ara
    Vol4ara 8 September 2019 10: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: garri-lin
    It is not strange, but green energy is subsidized, not only in the monetary sense, but also in the energy one. To produce the same windmill you need to spend energy and a lot. Starting from energy costs for the extraction of raw materials and ending with the cost of energy for installation. And there is an opinion that that windmill is not able to generate an equivalent amount of energy. They reckoned with batteries and recycling. Thus, it is impossible to switch completely to green. Just can not reproduce.

    Oh well, money is not needed to build a nuclear power plant or nuclear power station, and you don’t need money to extract raw materials for construction and work, and Uganda can even afford uranium enrichment. Storage and processing of SNF is the most economical in the world. Economic losses from the mortality of the population of people working and living near TPPs and far from TPPs as a result of a general environmental degradation can be ignored. Well, the losses from the liquidation of the Chernobyl, Fukushima, Mayak accident, the lost income from contaminated lands, the lost income from people who died in the liquidation process and for many years afterwards, payments to people with disabilities.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 8 September 2019 11: 14 New
      0
      Suggest an alternative. But only energy efficient. That which will be able to supply 24/365 with a huge amount of energy. If you can’t, then give up for a month on everything that was produced with the help of electricity (everything) and we’ll see if you can live.
      1. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 8 September 2019 14: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: garri-lin
        Suggest an alternative. But only energy efficient. That which will be able to supply 24/365 with a huge amount of energy. If you can’t, then give up for a month on everything that was produced with the help of electricity (everything) and we’ll see if you can live.

        Yes, there is no alternative, but no one talks about the total replacement of nave, gas and atom by green energy. We need to start small, and there it will be visible, maybe they will finish the peaceful thermonuclear poison, we will feed the city from a glass of water. If this topic were developed ... The private sector could well refuse to consume electricity and even sell surpluses, using the generation from SES, the roof area allows, but we can’t sell surpluses, we don’t want to share energy, and it’s hemorrhoid. Hand-held people with their heads on their shoulders buy broken Chinese elements, solder them, pour transparent epoxy into the frame and do not steam, cheap and angry, the efficiency drops by 15-20%, and the price is more than 3 times. But I won’t be surprised if our caring government introduces a sun tax, as it introduced a subsoil tax in some places, and water from private wells sharply became paid
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 8 September 2019 15: 08 New
          0
          A couple of years ago, I thought about SES for the home. Purely transfer all permanent consumers. TV, standby light, router, gained 1,5 kilowatts on trifles. I decided to put 2 kilowatts. And what do you think? For the amount that I have counted, I can buy these two kilowatts for more than 20 years. Despite the fact that they do not give a guarantee on the battery, they give a guarantee on the panel for 7 years and a service life of 15 years. And this is in the south, on the Black Sea coast. There is not even basic self-sufficiency. And putting clean panels without a battery is pointless. By the way, I'm leaving from LED bulbs to halogens. And this will increase the load on lighting by an order of magnitude. And lighting is evening time when there is no light.
          1. Vol4ara
            Vol4ara 8 September 2019 15: 29 New
            0
            Quote: garri-lin
            A couple of years ago, I thought about SES for the home. Purely transfer all permanent consumers. TV, standby light, router, gained 1,5 kilowatts on trifles. I decided to put 2 kilowatts. And what do you think? For the amount that I have counted, I can buy these two kilowatts for more than 20 years. Despite the fact that they do not give a guarantee on the battery, they give a guarantee on the panel for 7 years and a service life of 15 years. And this is in the south, on the Black Sea coast. There is not even basic self-sufficiency. And putting clean panels without a battery is pointless. By the way, I'm leaving from LED bulbs to halogens. And this will increase the load on lighting by an order of magnitude. And lighting is evening time when there is no light.

            If you do this, then mount everything yourself, companies are tearing down ...
            Broken solar cells are sold on Ali Express.
            In short, if you're interested, look at https://youtu.be/-ygR5maZ5t4, there were times when creosan did something erasing
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 8 September 2019 15: 58 New
              0
              What is the resource of these panels? Not interested? Purely for the sake of principle. Children can be shown that this is possible. Lighting in the kennel of a beloved dog to do. But in fact this is parasitism. Yes, and most to collect all this you need to have direct hands and get to work fully just do gold. Green energy is subsidized, essentially parasitic. Although in some conditions the parasite becomes a symbiote.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 8 September 2019 16: 55 New
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                What is the resource of these panels? Not interested? Purely for the sake of principle.

                Once you live in the south, you can find the former Kvant branch in Krasnodar, where they will tell you how many panels really cost now and about their resource. And the cost of non-standard, unless of course they sell it to private owners. Here you are for the seed:
                http://npp-kvant.ru/
                Quote: garri-lin
                Green energy is subsidized, essentially parasitic.

                All Columbus expeditions were subsidized ...
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 8 September 2019 17: 48 New
                  0
                  Columbus expeditions were subsidized and RESEARCH !!! So let the research in the field of energy also be subsidized, but why introduce it into the masses without bringing it to a state suitable for exploitation. This adjective to Columbus can say the same thing and send in parallel with the expedition at the same time cruise ships to an unknown country.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 8 September 2019 18: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    Columbus expeditions were subsidized and RESEARCH !!!

                    And what does it change in principle? We don’t have to deal with “green energy” at all, since it didn’t immediately bring you gold from America?
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 8 September 2019 18: 20 New
                      +1
                      No. Alternative energy needs to be dealt with, and dealt with tightly. But it should not be introduced into the masses until real, economic justified results are obtained. And including due to the descreditation of the concept. And now it’s very close.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 8 September 2019 16: 49 New
        0
        Quote: garri-lin
        . If you can’t, then give up for a month on everything that was produced with the help of electricity (everything) and we’ll see if you can live.

        You actually understand that your absurd demands have nothing to do with the development of "green energy", because it develops by itself, even if it is subsidized so far.
        Quote: garri-lin
        Suggest an alternative. But only energy efficient.

        Now they are conducting research on the possibility of recovering energy from the movement of a car on a highway. So the world does not stand still - no one can imagine what will happen in fifteen years in the field of electricity, especially considering that they have already learned how to get energy even when household waste is decomposed.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 8 September 2019 17: 43 New
          +1
          You are 15 years behind life. Research on energy recovery. Are you talking about recharging the battery of an electric vehicle during braking? Research is in !!!! USSR !!! Conducted regarding the project of the Istra car. And this is 80 years of the last century. This system has been operating on electric cars and hybrids for many years. But when these projects were at the research stage, green energy just predicted a bright future. Bv lagged behind realities.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 8 September 2019 18: 07 New
            0
            Quote: garri-lin
            You are 15 years behind life. Research on energy recovery. Are you talking about recharging the battery of an electric vehicle during braking?

            No, it’s not about this, but about the fact that lines are laid under the roadway in which EMF is induced when the car moves along the road.
            Quote: garri-lin
            Bv lagged behind realities.

            Actually, you are not in the subject, and this is noticeable, because the recovery was used not 15 years ago, but 80 years ago, in the first half of the 20th century.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 8 September 2019 18: 16 New
              +1
              And you about this dubious project. Another cut. No one thinks about the opposite effect of influencing a moving car. Themselves green and howl about the effect on passengers. Perpetum mobile Forever. By the way, they suggested putting wind generators in tunnels. Like a stream of cars creates air movement, twists the generator.
              What kind of energy recovery in the first half of the 20th century are you specifically talking about? In the context of green energy? The same recuperation is also used in the aforementioned Moscow Region, I don’t even know the PDA for sure.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 8 September 2019 18: 26 New
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                And you about this dubious project. Another cut.

                You are also that dubious type - first bring Soviet developments as an argument, and when they point you to something you have not heard about, then you immediately get a cut. And if the customer is a private company and invests their funds - then what do you care about their expenses?
                Quote: garri-lin
                What kind of energy recovery in the first half of the 20th century are you specifically talking about? In the context of green energy?

                In the context of the ability to partially receive energy from those processes that occur around a person constantly.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 8 September 2019 18: 37 New
                  0
                  Soviet developments have a justification, and proctical application. And the project you are talking about will be pulled by a zaush. This is even difficult to call recovery.
                  And do not indicate specifically how in the first half of the 5th century they received electricity by the recovery method.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 9 September 2019 11: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    And do not indicate specifically how in the first half of the 5th century they received electricity by the recovery method.

                    Was it difficult to search?
                    Louis Krieger (1868-1951) began manufacturing electric horseless carriages in Paris in 1894. In his electric vehicles, Krieger installed drive motors with a set of parallel windings (bifilar coils) for regenerative braking on both front wheels. A regenerative braking system was used to compensate for some of the energy lost during stops. This energy was stored in the battery, and then used to power the engine. In some cars powered by electric motors, the engine was used as a generator during braking.

                    http://www.electra.com.ua/istoricheskie-fakty/145-polnaya-istoriya-elektricheskikh-transportnykh-sredstv-rannij-period-chast-iii.html
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 9 September 2019 13: 17 New
                      0
                      Search what? That which the truth already knew without details. Then answer a difficult question. Why, in the presence of such a system, on the internal combustion engines stand separately the starter and generator. Although, with such progress in the field of recuperative systems, one universal unit was asking for itself. Come up with this one. But to make massive and reliable is another. I will prompt. Braking is a decrease in speed. Reducing the speed of the generator shaft is a decrease in voltage. Well, what will happen to the battery if it is unsystematically charged with different currents, I think you yourself perfectly understand. Tsiolkovsky also invented the rocket, but Korolyov launched it into space.
                    2. ccsr
                      ccsr 9 September 2019 19: 20 New
                      0
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Search what? That which the truth already knew without details.

                      And why did they pretend to be a hose?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Come up with this one.

                      This has been put into practice.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Tsiolkovsky also invented the rocket, but Korolyov launched it into space.

                      And what does this prove?
                    3. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 9 September 2019 21: 24 New
                      0
                      I did not pretend to be a hose. I elementarily forgot and the earliest example; the recuperation remembered Istria
                    4. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 9 September 2019 23: 29 New
                      +1
                      I am really sorry. On a solemn occasion, he abused alcohol. Hose did not pretend. I simply forgot about these examples. Not really an indicator. The battery life at that time was a dozen charges. And charging with a non-uniform current of the braking car also killed an already small battery life. At that time, the idea did not make sense. Hardware failed.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 8 September 2019 16: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Vol4ara
    Oh well, money is not needed to build a nuclear power plant or nuclear power station, and you don’t need money to extract raw materials for construction and work, and Uganda can even afford uranium enrichment.

    You have very clearly formulated what alternatives are not even considered at all. It tempts me to ask them - if all the costs of eliminating the Chernobyl accident are transferred to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in the USSR for at least fifteen years, then what will be the cost of kilowatt hours received from these stations?
  • BAI
    BAI 5 September 2019 16: 15 New
    0

    Last fall, the only Russian wind farm that worked for a long time looked like this. Kaliningrad

    According to WIKI, in Russia there are 15 operating wind farms.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 5 September 2019 16: 34 New
    +6
    Green energy is, first and foremost, a way to cut state funds, used in Europe as a priority. Amounts are sawed monstrous, but everything is decorated so beautifully that the robbery robbery goes under applause. Any traditional power plants, including those on brown coal, from the 50 of that century, are many times more environmentally friendly than any type of "green energy". Not to mention the cost.
    So the whole topic is a great PR project. That's all.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 5 September 2019 16: 36 New
      +2
      China ranks first in the world in introducing green energy
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 5 September 2019 16: 38 New
        -1
        The Chinese are also champions of corruption, in spite of any executions.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 5 September 2019 16: 39 New
          +1
          The Chinese are champions but they have booming economies and power of the country.
          Europeans are champions but they have a very high standard of living
          The United States generally has no equal but also a very high standard of living.
          But ours is clearly somewhere at the end of the list, but for some reason we have neither growth nor standard of living. The standard of living is already significantly lower than Chinese.
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 5 September 2019 16: 40 New
            +1
            And why is this demagogy? In the elderberry garden, in Kiev, uncle ... I know that. You can not repeat.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 5 September 2019 16: 42 New
              -1
              And where is the demagogy? I point out that corruption in these countries is radically lower, judging by the result.
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 5 September 2019 16: 45 New
                +4
                You are trying to get off the topic with a volley of cracking platitudes, without pointing to anything. I put forward the thesis that “green energy” is a cut. You stated that in China it is the most. I replied that the Chinese were stealing on a grand scale (that is, they could not pass by any way to steal state funds yet, and since there were many Chinese ...) After that, the dialogue lost its constructiveness.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 5 September 2019 16: 46 New
                  0
                  You put forward a thesis by not confirming it in any way, by any facts or reasoning. There will be facts and logic, there will be a constructive dialogue. And not reasoning where corruption is higher
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 5 September 2019 16: 54 New
                    +3
                    Yeah, that is, if the troll points to trolling, it can sometimes even wake up) It's cool. Facts? Well, firstly, anywhere in the world, wind energy, solar energy and working with biogas are not practiced without state support. States everywhere give huge tax benefits, pay part of the construction, provide land for free, etc. And even with all this, states still have to pay extra for the difference in the cost of energy received, because it is still more expensive than traditional methods!
                    Hydropower seems to be cheap. Yeah. That's just when considering the cost of "green energy" as it is all the time they forget to take into account the disposal losses and damage caused during the construction of structures. A hydroelectric power station is something monstrous, as if some enemies are destroying your land, and not you are giving yourself energy. Utilization of solar panels ... Electromagnetic interference and vibration from windmills ... Climate change from all this. A terrible stench around biogas stations ...
                    There are more than enough facts. The topic is already old, the power engineers are aware, but in the modern world there is no way for engineers to argue with saw cutters. Engineers are nothing, sawers are all ...
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 5 September 2019 17: 16 New
                      0
                      TPPs, nuclear power plants, etc., are also not made without state support, and everywhere they are helped in every way. Cut it?
                      And so from nuclear power plants, thermal power plants and others also do not take into account disposal, and harmful emissions during work and accidents

                      http://newsland.com/user/4297837084/content/globalnye-subsidii-na-iskopaemoe-toplivo-dostigli-52-trilliona-dollarov/6745838
                      According to a new report by the International Monetary Fund, in 2015 and 2017, the world spent a staggering $ 4,7 trillion and $ 5,2 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies, respectively. This means that in 2017, the world spent a whopping 6,5 percent of global GDP on subsidizing fossil fuel consumption alone.

                      More than all world military spending, about twice
          2. mark2
            mark2 5 September 2019 18: 53 New
            +4
            The world is full of myths.
            You can only talk about the standard of living after living there. For example, I also thought that in the capital of our Moscow, a higher level than in my Tambov. But having lived in the capital for a year, I will not say that it is so.
            The streets are not cleaner, although they are actively cleaning here. Income levels are so varied that even you wonder.
            A new friend of the wife just arrived from China, where she lived for 3 years. He says that life there is diverse in large cities, splendor and beauty, and in the outskirts is poor.
            They eat everything in a row, even that which a simple person does not eat. There is no central heating even in cities. Pensions are chosen and deserved. Garbage produces mass and is also exported.
            That friend even had to order products from Russia when she wanted to eat her own.
            Any indicator of rating agencies is certainly good, but they operate with the numbers that the rating subjects are given to them.
            1. mark2
              mark2 5 September 2019 19: 01 New
              +1
              Here a person lives in a city, at a low wage and living standard in but the country, in his opinion, is low. And the deputy’s son thinks differently. He may also think that it is worse than Germany or the United States, but with a billion it is equally good everywhere.
              1. srn
                srn 6 September 2019 12: 57 New
                -2
                and who's stopping you from becoming a deputy? "Baltic 9", sofa, "world of tank"
                1. mark2
                  mark2 6 September 2019 18: 34 New
                  +1
                  What for? The sofa and WoT are more interesting.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 19: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Green energy is, first and foremost, a way to cut state funds, used in Europe as a priority.

      Then I agree with you about the following scheme,
      1) a lobby is created and subsidies are organized
      2) a company is being created for the construction and management of the wind farm
      3) loans \ investments are taken for construction - taken by the management company
      4) during the operation of the wind farm, money flows to creditors and companies to the manufacturer of wind turbines, the management company’s profits are reduced to zero. The money is withdrawn from consumers and the state.
      5) all this is actively promoted and the management company enters the stock market to sell its share and receive investments for the "next growth spurt"
      6) At some point, the organizers quickly drop their shares or exit the business by other methods.

      The most annoying thing is that it discredits green energy and, as a result, truly profitable projects cannot “fly up”.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 5 September 2019 19: 01 New
        -2
        In your scheme, billionaires and bankers are complete idiots who don’t know who they give loans and investments to.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 21: 01 New
          +4
          Read carefully, the first paragraph, subsidies GUARANTEE REFUNDS TO CREDITORS, the state acts as the guarantor, so that they all know perfectly and that's why they give it.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 5 September 2019 21: 09 New
            -3
            Subsidies do not guarantee anything, subsidies are for example you do kilowatts from solar panels and sell to the network. And the state gives you 1 cent for this
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 21: 29 New
              +1
              Here I admit my mistake, not “subsidies,” but “preferences,” be it subsidies, benefits, grants, loan guarantees, guarantees on product purchases, etc. etc.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 5 September 2019 21: 44 New
                -3
                All this is also given to ordinary power plants actively.
  • Yrec
    Yrec 5 September 2019 16: 35 New
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: Yrec
    Any "green" generation requires either the return of surplus to the network or accumulation in batteries.

    It’s not necessary at all - in the world hydroaccumulative power plants have long been used to accumulate water in case of excess electricity. Such a station is even in the suburbs.
    Quote: Yrec
    The second one needs very expensive batteries,

    These stations do not need ordinary batteries.
    Quote: Yrec
    That's when there will be a breakthrough in the accumulation of electricity, then come.

    The widespread use of PSPs is the solution to this problem, especially from the point of view of using excess moisture during spring floods.

    In this case, it is easier to cost ordinary hydroelectric power plants, rather than to fence a garden. Moreover, wind farms and solar power plants are not built next to fresh water bodies. It is impossible to build a PSP in flood zones, because a significant difference in elevations is needed, and in the lowland zones there is nowhere to take it.
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 5 September 2019 16: 39 New
      -3
      Conventional hydropower plants destroy nature so strongly and irreversibly that the construction of each of them (with the exception of natural phenomena such as the one on which the Bureyskaya hydropower plant stands) is equivalent to treating this territory with several nuclear charges.
    2. Pavel57
      Pavel57 5 September 2019 17: 27 New
      +2
      HPP is also a time bomb. Firstly, the reservoir is essentially the accumulator of the entire periodic table. Secondly, like nuclear energy requires careful maintenance - a breakthrough of the dam is fraught with huge troubles. By the way, the cascade of dams on the Dnieper is in danger. The network has depressing information on this subject. In addition to enormous destruction and casualties, it is fraught with an atomic catastrophe, since a single energy system in the event of such a collapse will also hit the nuclear power plant. Fukushima in the center of Europe.
      1. Avior
        Avior 5 September 2019 20: 35 New
        0
        By the way, the cascade of dams on the Dnieper is in danger. The network has depressing information on this subject.

        Do not bother yourself.
        This is utter nonsense, this "information", someone writes this nonsense .....
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 5 September 2019 19: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Yrec
      In this case, it is easier to cost ordinary hydroelectric power plants, rather than to fence a garden.

      No, it’s no simpler — more land will have to be flooded.
      Quote: Yrec
      Moreover, wind farms and solar power plants are not built next to fresh water bodies.

      Excess energy can be used to raise groundwater.
      Quote: Yrec
      It is impossible to build a PSP in flood zones, because a significant difference in elevations is needed, and in the lowland zones there is nowhere to take it.

      Even in the plain of the Moscow Region, the elevation difference in some areas can reach hundreds of meters relative to the Moscow River, and this is already enough for the PSPP.
    4. Avior
      Avior 5 September 2019 20: 36 New
      +1
      Moreover, wind farms and solar power plants are not built next to fresh water bodies.

      Where did you get that.
      Build without problems
  • Astronaut
    Astronaut 5 September 2019 17: 06 New
    +1
    Last fall, the only Russian wind farm that worked for a long time looked like this. Kaliningrad

    But the author does not consider Russia and Crimea and Chukotka?
    1. Avior
      Avior 5 September 2019 20: 33 New
      +1
      He knows that Ukraine has already set up a bunch in the Crimea, and now the Black Sea coastal zone and the Sea of ​​Azov in Ukraine are intensively built up by windmills and nuclear power plants
  • mavrus
    mavrus 5 September 2019 17: 12 New
    +1
    At the "re-democracy", our liberals liked to talk about the fact that the market will settle everything ... That's when the price of "green" energy becomes comparable to the traditional energy then it is worth starting this conversation.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 5 September 2019 19: 07 New
      -1
      how can it become comparable if they do not invest in it? Here the problem lies in HOW to invest, and not how much, to whom and where.
  • Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 5 September 2019 17: 25 New
    +2
    And why were tidal (TPP) and geothermal (GTES) excluded from the list of "green" power plants? Just because they can be built far from everywhere? So SES and wind farm in many places to build, although it is possible, but it makes no sense.
    But in Kamchatka, GTES will look very good. And the energy production on them is quite stable. Perhaps the point is the seismicity of the regions where it is possible to build a gas turbine power plant. Deep pipelines will burst at the slightest movement of the crust, and repairs will be long and expensive, if at all possible.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 5 September 2019 17: 44 New
    +1
    Green energy does not mean, by definition, clean, safe, infinitely profitable!
    So far, maybe then they’ll come up with something. We will see.
  • bar
    bar 5 September 2019 18: 04 New
    +2
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    Green energy has another huge minus -

    - It strongly depends not only on meteorology, but also on geography as a whole. The conditions for it beyond the polar are very different from the conditions of the promised land.
  • Avior
    Avior 5 September 2019 20: 31 New
    +1
    The article is filled with false theses.
    About the fact that the SES can only stand on dead ground, I already think it’s clear. Lunar landscape

    If you take a photo from the desert, it will be so. As if something had grown there before.

    And if not from the desert, then no problem. Was and has remained

    And next to the wind farm supports, even earthworms in the soil die from vibration. This is not to mention that these meat grinders for birds make noise so that nothing can be built around them again. Once again, disposal is a dirty thing.

    There is no such special noise there, I have not heard any, and the animals are definitely there, and the birds fly, often between them are ordinary agricultural fields. I have never seen any chopped carcasses.
    Holland, by the way, is a country of windmills for many centuries. The animals are in place, and the cheese is wonderful
    Reducing the load on the network and their networks, simplification.

    Of course, a decrease if SES are on the roofs of residential buildings.
    Consumers are nearby.
    And the fact that they work only during the day is that they cover the daily peak, consumption drops sharply at night, which is a problem for the power system, you need to keep the half-peak blocks.
    And about recycling is generally funny. In the windmill there is the same generator as in thermal power generation, what are the difficulties with recycling?
    1. Rwmos
      5 September 2019 21: 48 New
      +3
      I recommend, for example, noise pollution and birds ...
      https://istina.msu.ru/publications/article/17839585/ Причем тут - маладец, сказал только о морских ВЭС. Понятно дело, вдали от берега, да еще и прибой над ухом. Например в германской федеральной земле Баден-Вюртемберг установлено минимальное расстояние от жилых домов в 700 метров, при этом проводятся расчеты по каждому конкретному проекту с учетом допустимого уровня шума в ночное время (макс. 35-40 дБ в зависимости от типа жилой застройки)…
      https://media.ls.urfu.ru/603/1637/3907/4859/
      Well, this is a training manual of the Ural University ...
      As for "The same as turbines" - they told you that the supporters just say that they are NOT like turbines, but all are pure white, even green ...
      Photos sent with panels on the ground - excellent. Will the grass grow? Will it close the panels? What to do with it? How much is it? Total is a pure profanity, an advertising trick.
      1. Avior
        Avior 5 September 2019 22: 37 New
        0
        the grass grew and grows
        I saw a lot of them, in Germany and Holland they are at every step, grass is like grass under them. Mow grass, probably, maybe farmers take it to feed, I can’t say, I haven’t seen it personally
        In Germany, they often stand directly on the roofs of houses, especially among farmers.
        I saw animals under windmills, and I saw hares and foxes, birds. He didn’t look for worms. I have not heard any noticeable noise. On the contrary, they spin frighteningly almost in silence. Under them is a meadow with grass, and there is an ordinary field with some kind of rape or something else.
        About "Same as turbines"

        there are no turbines in the windmills, there are only generators, copper and iron, there it can be disposed of without problems.
        these columns do not interfere with windmills, they are usually made in large fields, for kilometers.
        as for the noise, so there they have a big bzik, they cover the tracks with tens of kilometers with sound absorbers on both sides, the villages are obligatory.


        photo, though from Wikipedia, I shot them only at first, there are so many of them that quickly get boring, but that’s how it looks.
        there is also a map with their location. there are really a lot of them.

        in the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg, a minimum distance of 700 meters from residential buildings

        maybe it is, but they usually cover large areas and 700 meters there is nothing.
        I saw quite a lot in the Wurzburg area, these are approximately those places.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 6 September 2019 07: 46 New
          +2
          Under the solar panels sow lawn GMO grass, which simply strangles everything else and grows low and requires a minimum of intervention. But, as we understand it, this is almost akin to burning the ecosystem into the lunar landscape. For GMOs in the ecosystem are akin to pathogens. To reclaim the soil after such a culture requires millions of investments and years of time.
          1. Avior
            Avior 6 September 2019 07: 52 New
            0
            What else would you come up with?
            Different things happen. In appearance, sometimes the same as in the Alps on pastures grows.
            On the lawn boxes, by the way, they write the composition of ordinary grass.
            And sometimes it looks like ordinary weeds
            1. g1washntwn
              g1washntwn 6 September 2019 09: 05 New
              0
              And sometimes there’s grass useful for sight, but it’s in the Netherlands and the USA smile Germany is now building plans at sea for offshore wind farms, since onshore only coastal ones pay for themselves. We look, near Munich they are generally zilch-and-small, and in the sea there are more pluses than minuses.
              1. Avior
                Avior 6 September 2019 13: 13 New
                0
                I brought a map somewhere here.
                A lot of things far from the sea
                1. g1washntwn
                  g1washntwn 9 September 2019 06: 39 New
                  +2
                  Look for a report on Germany's wind energy profitability. The farther from the sea - the more state subsidies to cover the loss.
  • Disorder
    Disorder 5 September 2019 22: 25 New
    +4
    SES - the most problematic in terms of operation. Their placement requires large areas. And how much water will it take to wash hundreds of thousands of square meters of panels?
    In the desert, another problem is added - under the influence of sand transferred by the wind, the panels become cloudy and there is no way to get rid of it with a simple washing.
  • Avior
    Avior 5 September 2019 22: 48 New
    0
    About the hydroelectric power station.
    Hydroelectric power stations even on lowland rivers, unfortunately, are an urgent need, for all the damage that they can cause by flooding. The fact is that electricity consumption is very uneven in time - at night much less than during the day.
    Therefore, electricity generation must also change.
    Large thermal and especially atomic blocks are very inertial, due to thermal processes, it is impossible to change production quickly on them, and on atomic ones the operating range of capacities is also small. (That’s why atomic plants usually work in a constant mode, and therefore they cannot be more than 50 percent, however, there is an exception, France, they have 70 percent atomic output).
    Therefore, the so-called semi-peak blocks of special construction are built, which can be stopped at night, allowed to start during the day. But there is also a morning and evening peak, when consumption increases sharply.
    In this case, they use hydraulic units, they allow you to get into operation very quickly, in tens of seconds, and sometimes faster. By the way, wind farm units also allow this.
    Without this, there will be emergency outages due to a decrease or vice versa the increase in the frequency in the network.
    hi
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 6 September 2019 03: 30 New
    +5
    Solar power in its current form is a dead end. To replace one standard 1000-megawatt fossil fuel power plant, you need to cover 330 square kilometers with solar cells! And this is in the southern countries! We can safely multiply this by three! At the same time, a huge amount of fresh water is required to clean the panels, their service life is limited, but utilization will cost a lot of money ...
    1. kig
      kig 6 September 2019 07: 50 New
      0
      As for Russia, the main problem is that the main windy areas are where no one lives and will not live in the foreseeable future (until global warming hits).
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 6 September 2019 14: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Solar power in its current form is a dead end.

      This is not so, if only because even in space they transform solar energy. And the cost of solar panels is steadily declining.

      Quote: Sahalinets
      To replace one standard 1000-megawatt fossil fuel power plant, you need to cover 330 square kilometers with solar cells!

      And how much money does it take to deliver several kilowatts of electricity from this station to the consumer, if it is 300 km from it, and even in an inaccessible area? Will you extend the power line there?
      Quote: Sahalinets
      We can safely multiply this by three!

      Nothing of the kind - the difference is 20-30% and no more.
      Quote: Sahalinets
      At the same time, a huge amount of fresh water is required to clean the panels, their service life is limited, but utilization will cost a lot of money ...

      Water is being cleaned for reuse, the life of solar panels is now up to 15 years, and silicon utilization is less problematic than nuclear waste.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 6 September 2019 06: 13 New
    0
    Well, environmentalists are still that audience — give them free rein and power — they are positively prepared to drive everyone into the dugouts and eat grass with heating from a dung or a neighbor. (I exaggerate of course, but in essence this ending will be in the name of nature and animals). And on the topic, nuclear energy and hydroelectric power stations are still the cheapest and cleanest. There is nothing to be done with the fact that a person producing 1 kg of a product 3 kg produces waste along the way.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 6 September 2019 09: 28 New
    0
    The author’s article reminded me of Miller’s delights from 7-9 about a shale bubble!
    Physically in Germany, in the first half of 2019, green energy gave in aggregate more electricity than coal plants along with nuclear plants! By 2023, it is planned to increase the share of renewable energy to 65%. The cost of equipment for both wind power plants and wind farms is constantly decreasing. At SES, the dynamics have already been cited, but this was in 2013, at the beginning of 2019, the price fell already below 45 cents and continues to fall. Stashilki for the fact that worms in the district do not live from the category of desert in the places of shale mining. Birds have fun flying bugs and midges as well.
    No one says that you need to turn off all thermal or atomic generation, although everything goes to this. Thermal generation will remain as compensating and removing peak loads. But its share will fall steadily in the overall energy balance of Europe. Which will entail a reduction in oil and gas demand.
    P.S. If it’s simpler, then the article that Russia overslept green energy and now we need to think hard about where to add our natural resources, not today but after 10 years.
  • Pacifist
    Pacifist 6 September 2019 09: 54 New
    0
    Alternative energy, it is neither good nor bad. This is just another method of obtaining energy among others and in some places, under certain conditions, it is quite acceptable, but! This energy industry cannot be compared in terms of efficiency, cost, convenience, or output with nuclear or thermal. Moreover, nuclear is just the most environmentally friendly. And when using new cycles of nuclear material trafficking, it is generally practically wasteless and, in relation to the history of mankind, is eternal.
  • Kito
    Kito 6 September 2019 10: 29 New
    +1
    With the modern development of technology, the future of energy is still nuclear technology. At the moment, the efficiency of solar panels is 9-24%. The efficiency of single-circuit nuclear power plants operating in a closed gas turbine cycle may exceed 45-50%. I'm not saying that there is an intensified search for cold fusion well, etc. Let's go back to solar energy.
    The power of the solar radiation flux at the entrance to the Earth’s atmosphere (AM0) is about 1366 watts [6] per square meter. At the same time, the specific power of solar radiation in Europe in very cloudy weather even during the day [9] may be less than 100 W / m²
    Formula for calculating the power of solar panels
    Psp = Ep * k * Pins / Eins, where:
    Psp - power of solar panels, W;
    Ep - energy consumption, Wh per day;
    Eins - average monthly insolation (from the table) kWh / m2 / day;
    Rins - insolation power on the earth's surface per square meter (1000W / m2);
    k is the coefficient of loss on charge - the discharge of the batteries, the conversion of direct voltage to alternating voltage, usually taken equal to 1,2-1,4.

    Formula for calculating the energy generated by solar panels
    Ev = Eins * Psp / Pins * k, where:
    Psp - power of solar panels, W;
    Ev - energy generated by solar panels, Wh per day;
    Eins - average monthly insolation (from the table) kWh / m2 / day;
    Rins - insolation power on the earth's surface per square meter (1000W / m2);
    k is the coefficient of loss on charge - discharge of the batteries, the conversion of direct voltage to alternating voltage, usually taken equal to 1,2.
    And the cherry on the cake is the cost and degradation of the solar panel is about 0.5-0,7% per year. Naturally, there are instances that have been working for over 50 years, but their price is appropriate and their degradation occurred in 10 years by 20%.
    That we have not yet taken akb for the dark. Maybe this is beneficial in Africa, but in our climate it definitely sucks
    1. dgonni
      dgonni 6 September 2019 17: 51 New
      0
      In Europe, there are no batteries anywhere to store surplus on the farm. There is direct return to the network and receipt of money upon the fact minus your consumption! Modern solar panels are made with a margin and guarantee when illuminated with the specified ISO parameters, the issuance of the declared parameters for 20 years! Suddenly? Is not it?
  • Old tanker
    Old tanker 6 September 2019 17: 25 New
    +2
    The topic is really interesting!
    I always quite assumed that all these windmills and solar panels on an industrial scale of energy production are bullshit and are unlikely to be profitable. But it still turns out to be much more neglected
    1. dgonni
      dgonni 6 September 2019 17: 52 New
      -2
      Holguins used to say the same for shale! That's all I wanted to say!
  • APASUS
    APASUS 6 September 2019 21: 38 New
    0
    All this green energy can be a serious part of other programs, for example, a program for the disposal of manure, household waste, furniture production waste. But it is presented as a solution to all environmental, energy problems. In fact, raising one part, people completely remove from this part that the panels are dangerous in production, windmills give out resonant vibrations, and this is only the beginning.
  • Egor-dis
    Egor-dis 7 September 2019 10: 54 New
    0
    About green energy was an interesting broadcast on Radio Sputnik. The essence, briefly, was that wind farms were in the USSR back in the 40-50s. And experiments with them went on long enough. The main conclusion is that the territory of the USSR (and now the RF) is so wide that there are no universal solutions for the use of alternative sources. Too many geographical and climatic factors are against their use. I recommend to listen. Very informative.
  • grumbler
    grumbler 7 September 2019 13: 47 New
    +3
    Even in Germany, where not only nuclear power plants, but even research reactors were shut down under the pressure of the Greens, sensible voices are already being heard for the revival of nuclear energy.
    См. http://www.ng.ru/world/2019-08-27/8_7660_germany.html

    With regard to energy, a prevailing one-sided view of the country's leadership is noted, associated with the development of only low-carbon types of energy production from the sun and wind at full
    the exclusion of such a low-carbon path as nuclear energy. The development envisaged by government plans has led to the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are at a fairly high level, and the development of bio- or wind energy leads to the destruction of nature and threatens the health of the nation. At the same time, electricity prices in Germany remain the highest in Europe.


    About the "cheapness" of nuclear energy is really cunning. It’s cheap only if you have Siberia, Native American reservations, poor countries in Africa or the deep sea,
    where you can store radioactive waste. But! Even if you handle the waste as it should, the nuclear power plant is still out of competition in terms of volume and stability of energy production.

    Already found quite a lot of alternative schemes of nuclear power plants, which have not yet received wide distribution due to complexity. But they are.

    Partly an "outdated" scheme is a scheme for converting fission energy into electric current through a steam generator-turbine-electric generator chain. Somewhere such a scheme is still justified. For example, if steam is used for industrial needs (in chemical production, etc.) or for heating homes.
    But receiving electricity in this way is inefficient. By generating electricity in this way, we warm up the Earth’s atmosphere, exacerbating the anthropogenic impact on the climate.
    Therefore, imho needs to focus on finding a "steam-free" conversion of fission energy into electricity. It can be some MHD generators, plasma or based on a “turbulent dynamo”, on phase transitions in ferromagnets / ferroelectrics. Perhaps they will radically increase the electrical efficiency of nuclear power plants. Get rid of a complex, cumbersome and expensive steam turbine chain.

    "Green" energy sources are also promising if they are not used in the framework of the "campaign" and political populism. For example, on small rivers, hose-type micro-hydroelectric stations, which do not need to create reservoirs, work perfectly. To work, they need quite small differences in elevation. The idea was very popular in the USSR in the second half of the 80s, but the collapse of the country buried these ideas (it would seem that it should have been the other way around, decentralization and "local initiative", as they called it then, should give impetus to the development of small energy. But "reforms “We didn’t take the path of construction, as we all hoped then, but the path of destruction. Against this background, small energy“ did not take off. ”).

    Solar panels and other light converters are certainly relevant in regions with bright suns.

    Everyone fantasizes about transforming the climate on Mars and relocating earthlings there.
    But first you need to save the forests of the Amazon, the taiga of Siberia and North America, the forests of California from destruction.
    Territories where Nature cannot cope with climatic conditions (the deserts of Africa or, in the future, thawing permafrost) are constantly expanding on our Earth. So man must help Nature. It is quite realistic to create artificial forms of "life" (self-reproducing inanimate structures) based on silicon, which, in combination with artificial photo-bacteria and fungi, could inhabit and strengthen the vast deserts of Africa. Gradually transform them into a special completely artificial environment, which at the same time generated electricity and the necessary substances for the surrounding bio-nature. Silicon-organic “herbs and trees” could grow there, transforming the energy of the ruthless equatorial sun, burning any earthly plants, into electricity and chemical. reactions.
  • Earnest
    Earnest 7 September 2019 20: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: demo
    Such a letter has come.
    With accompanying documents.
    And now this is serious.
    Very seriously.
    .
    We offer for sale electricity that will be produced at
    the most environmentally friendly power plants in the world using Terragenerators,
    .
    a specific customer is required (e.g. aluminum GOK), which
    guaranteed monthly will pay the specified amount of electricity for
    fixed price ...

    Have you read up to the declared price tag of this free electricity? 40 cents for 1 kW - how do you like the price of "killing Gazprom"? wassat Twenty-six rubles and forty cops at the rate of 07.09.19 per kilowatt laughing If Gazprom dies, it’s only out of laughter! As they say, read everything, and the fine print too drinks
  • cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 7 September 2019 23: 24 New
    0
    Green Energy is a windmill. Time has passed, which of the peasants (farmers) are now using windmills? (peasants refuse from gratuitous energy). Under the "king-priest", peasants and many others used "transport" on "biofuel" (a horse consumes hay and oats = biofuel). Why are now the peasants switched to the "iron horse" which consumes "harmful" diesel? The fleet abandoned the "wind engines" (sails), the galley rowers "lost their jobs" ... "Green Energy" = "Vegetarianism", are YOU personally ready to become a "vegan" ...? good
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 8 September 2019 09: 51 New
      0
      Quote: cat Rusich
      "Green energy" = "Vegetarianism", are YOU personally ready to become a "vegan" ...?

      It’s ridiculous to read this, given that cars have already begun to be produced, where in addition to the internal combustion engine electric motors are installed, and on the surface of the car there are solar cells that provide energy for recharging the batteries.
  • Vol4ara
    Vol4ara 8 September 2019 14: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: Mikhail3
    Utilization of solar panels ... Electromagnetic interference and vibration from windmills ... Climate change from all this.

    And what's wrong with recycling solar panels? :) I warn you in advance, it’s better to read first, than to write nonsense rooted in Runet that it is expensive and harmful :)
    Climate change from windmills and SES? Ahaha, are you serious
    1. Rwmos
      8 September 2019 20: 03 New
      -1
      "Ahaha" - "thermal pollution of the Earth." In the case of SES, 1 is explained by the phrase - albedo - the reflecting ability of the Earth - at the location of the SES is close to zero, all the energy that is normally reflected including from the surface - remains on Earth. Overheat. Changing of the climate.
      1. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 8 September 2019 21: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: RWMos
        "Ahaha" - "thermal pollution of the Earth." In the case of SES, 1 is explained by the phrase - albedo - the reflecting ability of the Earth - at the location of the SES is close to zero, all the energy that is normally reflected including from the surface - remains on Earth. Overheat. Changing of the climate.

        Do you seriously believe that an increase in the albedo from solar panels is more significant than from an increase in the global ocean area as a result of the melting of glaciers as a result of the greenhouse gases emitted by cars and traditional sources of electricity - TPPs? And if I repaint a car from white to black? And if I decide to dig my own couple of hectares of chernozem in the Lipetsk region in July? Is it significant, is it worth banning for environmental reasons? And what about the albedo of hydroelectric reservoirs? The water absorption is clearly higher than that of the forest
        1. Rwmos
          8 September 2019 21: 15 New
          -1
          Water albedo is MORE than land. As for carbon dioxide, there is such a term - "breath of the ocean." The main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean ... Human activity is a tiny fraction of a percent against this background, the order of hundredths of a percent, CO2 dissolves in water and there are so many in the ocean ... This same ocean absorbs excessive CO2, and with the melting of glaciers - able to absorb more, which returns the system back to equilibrium winked
          And if you repaint a car from white to black, you will quickly realize that in the summer in the south you even have nothing to do with a good Conder - precisely because everything that reflected white paint - black boils inside the cabin. You gave a good example, only a slightly larger car in the case of SES, so it will take more than one summer to set up a bathhouse.
  • Vol4ara
    Vol4ara 8 September 2019 15: 18 New
    0
    Quote: grumbler
    on the "turbulent dynamo"

    Everyone fantasizes about transforming the climate on Mars and relocating earthlings there.


    1. I did not know that my ex was connected with energy

    2. There is no magnetic field, you have to live under the surface, generating light for plants. By the way, not a single experiment on creating an artificial stable biosphere on earth has been successful. And it is in the sunlight
    1. grumbler
      grumbler 10 September 2019 11: 36 New
      0
      1) It seems to me that it was the Darkest Irony;) ​​And so the “turbulent dynamo” - quite, so to speak, a “respectable” physical explanation of the Earth’s magnetic field and the periodic restructuring of the poles. And the mechanism for generating magnetic fields in astrophysics. For an example, see: S.I. Weinstein, Ya.B. Zeldovich "On the origin of magnetic fields in astrophysics (Turbulent mechanisms" dynamo ")", Usp. Fiz. L. Ts. Adzhemyan, A. N. Vasiliev, M. Gnatich “Turbulent dynamo as a spontaneous symmetry breaking”, TMF.

      So far, far from energy. But I see something “unnatural” in the union of atomic energy and, roughly speaking, a “samovar”. There should be no steam, turbines or mechanical power generators in such installations. Moreover, we have an example of such a device and it is more than 100 years old - it is a Transformer. Modern powerful transformers have an efficiency of around 85%. And only magnetic spins in a ferromagnet “spin” there. “Left” (of course, it’s ridiculous to write this, just like in a joke about Jewish matchmakers: “Fuh ..., well, they persuaded Sarah. There’s a little thing left - to conspire with Pan Pototsky”), learn to “spin the back” in another way, supplying energy from an atomic reactor .

      2) So I, that instead of fantasies about Mars, would take care of Mother Earth.
  • Ruslan_1976
    Ruslan_1976 9 September 2019 10: 25 New
    -1
    It should run out of oil and gas resources so that it would reach a person that it is necessary to switch to green energy. For our age, I think they will be enough, but as for our children, I’m not sure from the word at all. Probably our children are not, but the grandchildren will definitely curse us
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 9 September 2019 12: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Ruslan_1976
      It should run out of oil and gas resources so that it would reach a person that it is necessary to switch to green energy.

      Not necessarily - the issue here is the cost of receiving and delivering one watt of electricity to a specific region or locality. It is possible that it is precisely because of the reduction in the cost of "green energy" that it will supplant traditional methods of generating electricity in some areas. They have already learned how to extract gas from rotting in perennial landfills and can be used to heat nearby homes in neighboring villages.
  • Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 9 September 2019 11: 16 New
    -1
    Obsessed with green demons - these are not alcoholics, but crazy ecologists, all the benefits of which are negative.
  • Mr bean
    Mr bean 10 September 2019 17: 24 New
    +1
    I do not understand what is there to discuss at all? Let the market decide! There should be fair competition between hydropower plants, thermal power plants, nuclear power plants and green energy. No surcharges, no subsidies in green, and no artificial strangulation of traditional energy.
    Here some are crucified about how windmills and solar panels are beneficial. If everything is so beautiful, then why donations?
  • dog of war
    dog of war 11 September 2019 12: 19 New
    0
    so I don’t understand why SES automatically makes the earth dead
    1. Katran
      Katran 11 September 2019 22: 43 New
      0
      Because without direct sunlight, everything grows poorly. It's like in a forest with a dense crown under the trees, almost nothing grows except stunted grass.
      1. dog of war
        dog of war 12 September 2019 18: 04 New
        0
        interesting and who will sow something on the territory of the SES? Just for the SES and land is not suitable for agricultural farming.
  • Katran
    Katran 11 September 2019 22: 39 New
    0
    Were last summer in Greece. There, it is FAVORABLE for farmers to place solar panels and generate electricity on their plot of land because the EU PAYS them good subsidies for this business! It is many times more profitable than anything to grow on this site or even build a farm there.
    Understand the essence! The European Union lobbies and subsidizes all of the “green energy”, and without these subsidies it is LOSSY, something like that.
    One of my friends, a sailor who sailed to China and India, said that there are solar panels, windmills and solar collectors on almost all houses. Just the total capacity of their energy is not enough for the needs of everyone. If the people didn’t take care of themselves, then they would have lived in the darkness and "went to bed with hens."
    Here, as they say: "The salvation of drowning people is the work of the drowning people themselves" wink
  • Katran
    Katran 12 September 2019 20: 34 New
    0
    Quote: dog of war
    land not suitable for agricultural farming is allocated.

    In Greece, under the SES we saw ordinary fields on which something was growing nearby. It seems that farmers are too lazy to poke around in the land, counting on the mercy of the weather. It’s easier to put SES panels and type “generate electricity” and even get good subsidies from the EU and put them in your pocket.